TALENT (myth or fact)

[Fesbra]

Hi guys.
I want to start a discussion thread about something that some guys have been discussing over the chilean concept art group on facebook.

Some people say there is talent. Some guy that can do stuff and improve faster than other students, because of something that he came with when he was born. So he's like obviously going to be best than anybody and you as you got no that much of a talent won't ver get in front of him no matter how much you work your ass off.

Some other people say that there is no such thing and all that matters is hard work, passion, love and how much you want the thing. What makes a student be better is self motivation and practice and how you learn form the many mistakes you have made.

So I leave the thread open hoping for a cooled down discussion.

[Ursula Dorada]

"Don't bother about whether or not you have it. Just assume that you do, and then forget about it. Talent is a word we use after someone has become accomplished. There is no way to detect it before the fact... or to predict when or if mastery will click into place." Richard Schmid on Alla Prima book.

There more I delve into art, the more I learn about other artists, the more this looks true to me.

[Doolio]

I would say that talent indeed exists, but there are a couple things about it:)

-it's more of an inclination to some area, really. For example, me and my friend went to the atelier together and he was much more correct when it came to proportions than me, while my drawings were much less stiff than his. And those tendencies are still observable, but much less so, because we progressed (at least a bit lol). Which leads me to my second point

-in the long run, it effectively doesn't matter. Let's simplify things and say that there are 100 level of painting. And let's say that if you're talented, you start with a 5 and some neutral person starts with 0 or 1 maybe. So, like after a month, you get to 10 and that guy gets to, say, 3. You are indeed doing better and you learn faster because you had a headstart, a natural inclination. But, after five years of same intensity and output, he catches up, because the more you progress, the more actual work counts. And not only that, but, the higher your levels are, those starting 4-5 points are making less and less of a difference. At the end, you'll be like level 97 and he'll be 92 or something, which is quite insignificant

-except when, for this reason or the other, we actually need to split hairs:) Which could be observed in, for example sprinting. Let's say Usain Bolt has predispositions to be more successful runner than most of the other people. And he trained hard and now he is faster than other people, even those who worked just as hard as him. But, he isn't running the 100m in 3 secs, while the others do it in 10, it's MUCH more close than that. So, I'll say that, even they all work equally hard and they have similar conditions to train (I'll assume that's the case, for the sake of discussion, it simplifies things), he gets that extra edge because, I don't know, he was born with such and such muscle fibers and his leg to body ratio is such and such etc. And that extra edge is enough to win him a lot of medals because that's how running competitions work. But it's like 0.08 secs difference between those guys.
And if we assume that I am quite untalented for running, if I have trained as much as he was, I would probably be able to run 10something, which is some kind of decent competitive level (maybe I talk nonsense with these numbers, I'm not that into running, but it's just an example).
And with painting, those predispositions are less limiting than with running. Yes, someone sees colors better (we had this girl at the atelier which was CRAZY with noticing color mixes on things - but then again, she couldn't draw like AT ALL:) - and not only that, but, at some point, even I, a complete idiot for that stuff, started to notice that the black isn't really black but, for example, 20% prussian blue, 70% van dyck brown and some olive green and stuff like that, so it's a skill that you acquire and level), someone has better dexterity, someone has better 2d understanding and someone is better at 3d etc. but I think it's all something you can work on quite successfully.

Also, in the atelier, I have seen somewhat lazy talented people progress insanely fast and good for like six months and then they stagnate and then they get passed by others. It can carry you only so far.

Of course, this is just my take on this subject, people may disagree completely.

So, basically, my answer would be "yes", but I don't think that's the right question, as, looking at your post, I choose this paragraph

all that matters is hard work, passion, love and how much you want the thing. What makes a student be better is self motivation and practice and how you learn form the many mistakes you have made.

So, my answer would have to be a bit more elaborate, something like "Talent exists, but it's significance in becoming a skillful artist can be completely disregarded in the end".

[Adam Lina]

Well said Ursula and Doolio! I think talent does exist but its only one half of the coin. Pretty much what Doolio said. You could have loads of talent but possess no drive and end up much worse than someone who has almost no talent at all but who worked 100 times harder.

[meat]

I wouldn't even say it's half a coin, it's a nice starter boost, but if you don't cultivate and train it, it becomes fickle and a liability, and very quickly hard work and determination out-shines and out-perform it in the long term.

[Adam Lina]

Well I dont think talent is like starting out at level 5 when others start at level zero. A person with talent starts at level 0 as well but they gain experience with less effort. So this easy reward tends to make people less determined than someone whos always had to try really hard to get any kind of improvement. It has to do with fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence to get scientific with it ಠ_ಠ Some people have more ability to problem solve and recognize patterns using logic and not acquired knowledge. This is called fluid intelligence where as recalling and using ones acquired knowledge is crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence also allows them to learn new information at a faster rate. Theres studies showing that its possible to increase your fluid intelligence but nothing has been conclusively demonstrated yet. Its a fairly new area and we dont know much about how it all works yet.

[Tyrus]

I've noticed something about talent and it's usage, adding onto all this.

Some assume whatever something is that they don't know about, or see as some sort of arcane thing, consider talent to be gospel in all forms of anything ever (most people, my uncle lel). But as people progress in that specific craft they stop using the word 'talent' and start using other words for what they think talent is or could be (or what people see that they think is talent yeah this is confusing). At the upper echelons of said craft, or those that are well known in that field, they consider talent either an insult or just another word for "hard work" (Gabe Newell, Picasso).

That leads to a personal point, honestly: The word 'Talent' is used to define something that is subjective. Even in cases where someone does say "x is not talented" or "x is naturally talented" there are many many factors we do not consider: We don't know when that person actually 'started' something, we don't visually see how much that person puts into what they do (or don't put into), we don't see the machinations or the very passive things something someone does that could/does add to their craft that nobody thinks of. It's dated grey area more oft than not. That's just my opinion, though.

To go along with what everyone is saying in this thread, all this could be equated to a couple traits from the fallout games called "Prodigy" and "Slow Learner" (Keeping in mind I'm not sure if these are in any of the base games and I'm sure these aren't their names). Both slow your exp gain, but the former gives you a nice stat boost early on while the latter gives you more points per level to spend, and you can't have both at the same time. Somewhere, there's a gradient scale for 'talent' and while many people hover around the middle, both of those traits would fit on each end.

Idunno.

[Prabu]

Yes it does. If you don't have talent then you have to work hard.

[Heavenwill]

Everyone has to work hard in order to achieve

[Doolio]

Well I dont think talent is like starting out at level 5 when others start at level zero. A person with talent starts at level 0 as well but they gain experience with less effort.

That too, but I really do think it counts as a "level 5 start" too. If we see talent as an innate trait or set of traits that help a certain person with achieving something (roughly speaking).

For example, I am "more talented" when it comes to achieving likeness in drawing than my friend. And if you were to give us both a pencil and let us draw each other's portraits BEFORE any of us has touched a pencil or read or saw anything about drawing, my portrait would be a drawing of him (although with no regard to fundamentals, values would be off, masses would be quite a bit wrong etc) and people would recognize who it is and they might even say it's a nice pencil drawing if they are not into art and don't know what they're saying. His portrait would be a random stickman.
We could guess whether those traits are better perception or better hand-eye coordination or recognition of shapes etc. but it shows before any practice has occurred.
I mean, I have a friend that tried to draw a rectangle and he drew a triangle:) He is one of the best IT experts in country and knows very well what is a rectangle and what is a triangle:) He is a gamer (so he has at least decent control over his hands:) ). And yet, he succeeded to draw that triangle and we all like to reminisce that from time to time because it was so epic:)

And of course, if I was to do nothing while he practiced, that advantage would disappear after like two months and if we were both practicing, it would again disappear or become insignificant after, say, three years, while losing the edge consistently. And during that three years, the difference might be biggest after six months for example, as I acquire and apply knowledge in that area faster, before he starts to catch up.

[JonHop]

'hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard' - quote from a basketball player or coach (dont remember which) but I feel that is true in all aspects of skill based work, one thing talent can do is cause someone to become lazy and complacent which in turn leads the guy/girl who is working themselves as hard as they can to surpass the level of talent the other person has. In the end it comes down to both have to work as hard to master their craft and succeed, being talented is not enough to get you where you need to go, gotta work just as hard as those around you and in the end both the person who came with some natural ability and the person who didn't will be deemed talented because their hard work has paid off and it will show in their ability and skillset.

[Rognoll]

I think Sycra made a video about talent a little ago.

Edit: Yes, he did

[Ursula Dorada]

Awesome video by Sycra, thanks for linking it.

Let me add more fuel to the fire.
Is there a difference between Talent and Genius?
Because in genius I believe, a bit more than I believe in raw talent as people call it.
Kim Jung Gi is a genius, to me. He is really off the curve.

Then I watched this:


The small kid is a genius? Undoubtedly. He also broke the 4k hours pratice before he was 8.
So the whole thing of talent seems to receive feedback, and makes breaking those hours of pratice eaaaaasy, because you're enjoying it! You're good at it, you like, you just put the hours in.

So it's a similar point Sycra is making. Younger people copying successful artists works in their young ages? Those are good hours of practice right there, and a lot into the smart practice people are always talking about. It's much better than simply drawing and repeating your own mistakes!

Also, most of people I met that were "crazy talented" were also really specialized. If you push the a bit out of the comfort zone it falls apart rather quickly. To me, it looks like they found and used a very effective solution for this type of image; But not a lot of effort has yet go into other areas. That just shows us even the crazy talent needs practice just like the rest of us.

Until it becomes easy enough and you want to do it for fun, and the cycle starts over.

So back to Richard Schmid quote - you never know when mastery will click into place, but even the genius have put their hours in.
Kim Jung Gi couldn't stop drawing because it was so much fun - and those hours flew by.

[Burl]

Talent is certainly over-rated and the word gets thrown around alot, especially when it comes to those who make art. Talent, really, is just the ability to pick up on a skill quicker on average than your peers, whatever that skill may be. However, that initial natural ability only takes you so far if you don't work at it, as in time, those who put in the hours will eventually overtake those who don't, regardless of how much natural ability they have. If talent alone was so important it would be common to see children making scientific breakthroughs, painting masterpieces and writing amazing novels. I feel that talent can have a snowball effect, though - those who are good at something enjoy doing it, so they do more of it and get even better, where as the guy who struggles is more likely to give up.

I do think ones genetic makeup has its limits in how far you can really go, though. I could never be an Olympic level swimmer no matter how much practice I put in or how passionate I was. My natural build is too short and stubby to be optimal for swimming, and those more genetically tailored to suit the sport would ruin me. I think it's the same for everything in life.

[Swibble]

Some people are dull

[Hobitt]

In my opinion talent is just a person with the right upbringing which gives a small headstart with art in this case, but its perhaps less than 5 % of it everything else is work and practice practice practice.

[Adam Lina]

I think drawing is probably like 90% mental and only 10% muscle memory. So even before someone attempts to draw for the first time they may have been thinking about things visually more than another person. To other people it appears that they have a natural talent but they just started building their skill earlier. Thats not what talent is in my opinion. Talent would be someone who acquires new information faster and can apply it. And I dont see the point of comparing sports and genetics to art. All you need to preform art is at least one hand an eye and a brain. Theres an image for ya :D Genetics may predetermine someones height and bone structure and things like that. With a skill thats almost entirely mental it has more to do with the nervous system which can be greatly changed through someones environment. In terms of psychology its more nurture than nature. So maybe I'll change my answer and say that talent doesnt really exist and it only appears that some people have an edge. We all for the most part start with a blank slate and through our experiences build our own perspectives.

[Doolio]

I think drawing is probably like 90% mental and only 10% muscle memory.

While pretty much all of us on the topic agree about the general idea and importance of talent, I must agree to strongly disagree with this sentence in particular:)

edit:
I felt the need to edit this post, because people might get the wrong impression that I'm some kind of one-lining douche, which isn't the case:) The reason I didn't elaborate on it is because to me, it's an instant self-explanatory thing for which I find enough evidence in the mere act and approach to doing art and if we disagree in such matter, I don't think we could get closer to each other's view even if we were to write thousands of pages of discussion. So, I just decided to voice my disagreement with the proposed ratio and leave it at that:D (which doesn't mean I'm right, of course)

[Adam Lina]

Thats fine if you disagree but do you care to explain? I mean a person could learn how to get smooth lines and proper technique of drawing from the shoulder and elbow in a matter of a few weeks of casual practice. But how long does it take someone to learn how to use those abilities to draw a human figure in perspective? In the interview Sycra did with artgerm he says that he actually practices drawing in his mind. Kim Jung Gi talks about how he can visualize 70% of a drawing before he even makes a line. To me thats the defining skill of any accomplished artist.

[Doolio]

Ok, I'll elaborate a bit because it's would be rude to just say something and then go away, but I still think that we have vastly different approach to that matter and that we'll remain in our own boxes even after a lengthy discussion:)

You simply need to look at, say, Ursula's linework and then look at mine:) And we don't have to draw people or anything that requires knowledge as such. You could ask that we draw a simple single line. And her line is like five times better than mine. Because she's been drawing for ten years and from that ten years, she draws seriously for, let's say, three (Ursula I don't really know the facts so correct me if I'm horribly wrong:) ) and I've been drawing for those same ten years, but I've been serious about it for much less than that. So we are both past the point of those few weeks of casual practice.
I know a painter with like 40 years of experience and you should see his lines:) He could draw a scribble, some amoeba-like shape and we would all stare in wonder at the craftmanship of that amoeba scribble. He wouldn't have to draw a muscled human in perspective or a beautiful tree.

Also, try to ask a plastic surgeon who doesn't draw to draw a face. He knows face a lot more than probably all of us here and I'm pretty sure he can visualize it to shocking details and information. And his hand would simply refuse to perform that which he visualized because it can't. For the same reason I can't play billiards better than some average hobbyist, even though I know quite a bit about theory, stances, I know where to look, what to do, what spin does what thing etc. But I simply don't perform those moves on a regular basis. And you don't need anything for playing billiards, you even might need less predispositions than for art.

About visualization, yes, I agree it's an important asset and practice, of course. I do it too. But I also visualize doing a crossover in my mind (I really do) and it comes from the same place. But I need to actually perform a crossover for tens of thousands of times to perform it solidly. And I am really, really convinced that the same goes for art. Otherwise, I would progress in doing art by studying anatomy, photographs, color etc. without practical application, which is not the case. Visualization is an acompanying factor and a very important one, I didn't say it wasn't.