Talent: Why You Should Stop Believing In It And What Will Happen When You Do

i like the 2006 version.it is lively, bright and inviting.

i would purchase this one rather than the 2011 version.

regards,
marie

Posted: 2011-01-02 19:57:31

That was a joke right?

Posted: 2011-01-02 19:59:32

If it wasn't, it's for sale...:)

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:00:36

The latest version it bright, full of life and color. The older version is pale by comparison. It is sogood to see so much growth and understand of composition, color, line, etc....

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:03:12

Phew!

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:17:28

I happen to love both paintings you posted. One is more painterly and the other more refined. It's a matter of style preference. But back to your post which I agree with 100% I would only add one thing to your statement below....

"The only things that can limit how far I can go from here are my own motivation and the amount of time I have to practice in."

Belief in yourself that there the only limitations there are in art are those we place upon ourselves.

I drew a lot as a child and became good at it. Why did I continue to draw? Cause every drawing I did my mom made a big deal out of it and how good it was. I didn't possess a special ability, just a love for what I was doing and all that positive reinforcement kept me in art.

It was so much easier when I was a kid!

You mention some of the old masters and how successfull they were at the age you are now. Keep in mind people back then didn't live that long. So in comparison you are probably only a few years behind:-)

Keep up the good work. I have added your blog to mine under "helpful tips to painters". I enjoy your insights:-)

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:18:27

Thanks Anderson.

>all that positive reinforcement kept me in art.
That's so true. Colvin talks about that in the book.

>the only limitations there are in art are those we place upon ourselves.
Well, yes, but I doubt I'll be painting much past age 100. Still, you never know. seriously though, that's a great attitude I think.

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:23:01

I disagree somewhat. I have seen natural precocity at first-hand. It was just there. It was not dveloped. More ordinary talent certainly does respond to training and effort, but true genius is simply inexplicable in it's origin.

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:30:06

Hi Kenneth,

I'd really suggest reading the Colvin book. It's a quick and easy read. You never know, it might change your mind, or at least open it up to more possibilities. Colvin puts it much better than I can of course, and a large part of the book is taken up with the results of research studies into this very thing.

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:37:23

I fully agree with all you said. I am in a very similar position like yours. Our lives as regards art is so simliar. But I want to comment on one thing regard talent or no-talent. I believe that everyone has got talent, the difference is in aptitude. Some have aptitude to art so they grasp quickly conecpts and understandings athat others might find it very difficult to grasp. It is the same in other areas. For example some are quick to understand scientific principles, while others find it very difficult to do the same. The list of examples can go on forever. Cheers and all the best for 2011.

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:44:01

Dear Paul,
as a painter struggling with the same doubts you have I am very much incouraged by your post , you insight on the matter is deep hart felt and helpful so thank you very much.
About those oranges, I can see a big difference; like your brush has became a precision instrument of discovery. A Great year to You

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:48:14

I do agree that having a nurturing environment as a child is very important. I credit much of my success to my mother, who arranged for me to take art lessons early on and also provided me with reams of paper.

I do think, however, that my personality also played a huge role. I am an introvert, and love to spend quiet time alone, making practice easier. Without this inborn trait, I don't know that I would have had the desire to spend so many hours drawing as a child.

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:49:40

Hi Ray,

>"Some have aptitude to art so they grasp quickly conecpts and understandings athat others might find it very difficult to grasp."

Colvin gives an interesting example of a test done with a chess board. Pieces were placed on the board at particular stage of an actual game. A group of chess novices and a group of chess masters were asked to memorise the positions of the pieces.

The novices managed to remember six to nine pieces, the masters remembered all them them, without fail.

Although that might suggest that the masters had a natural aptitude for remembering the positions, very good memories, what was actually happening was that they recognised strategies and attack/defence formations from years of studying chess strategies and moves.

When the pieces were placed randomly and the test done again, the masters remembered n more positions than the novices.

This is a result of something Colvin calls 'domain knowledge.' He makes the case that 'aptitude' is actually the result of study and practice.There are other similar examples in the book too.

Best wishes to you too, have a great year :)

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:52:22

Hi Mariano, great to hear from you again! I'm really glad to hear you're still sticking with it too.

Seriously, read the book. You'll find much more inspiration and encouragement than I'm qualified to give you.

You have a great year too.

Posted: 2011-01-02 20:55:04

Hi Carolyn,

I was the same as you as a child, introverted and withdrawn. I'm pretty sure that's part of the reason I got into drawing too. That and spiderman comics :)

I think you're right that traits like that have an influence. Someone who can't stand being on their own for long periods is probably not cut out to be a painter.

But consider the possibility that even that trait may not have been inborn. It might have, of course, but many personality traits that we think we inherit through genes are actually developed because our parents had them too, and they are brought out by our relationship with them. I think that's partly why it's so difficult to reach hard and fast conclusions about the root of our personalities.

Recent findings in neuroscience suggest that far more of our personality traits are developed through the relationships we have with others, especially our primary carers, our parents. We are born with certain genetic tendencies - a range of possibilities if you like. But which of those possibilities get expressed depends on which genes are activated by our relationships. I'd recommend 'Why Love Matters' by Sue Gerhardt. Reading that book helped me to understand my own childhood much more deeply.

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:03:47

I agree with your position, Kenneth and the progress in your painting ability is obvious in your pictures above.

I want to respond to Anderson's comment "One is more painterly and the other more refined. It's a matter of style preference."

Yes, for the viewer, it is a matter of style preference. But, for the artist it can be preference only once he has achieved a level of competence. When Kenneth painted the clementine in 2006,it was painterly because that was the limit of his ability (no offence, Kenneth, I don't mean to speak of you as though you are not in the room :-))

Based on the skill that shines through in the new clementine, it appears that now he can choose to paint more refined or more loosely. It is his decision each time, and his competence will show through in all areas, the values, the hues, the composition and the light.

Oh one more thing, Kenneth,about what you can achieve in this lifetime (and mid forties is still young)...I believe it is a huge advantage for artists today that our learning tools are so accessible via the internet and that we can interact with other artists so easily. Plus we can travel all over the world to see great art. If you can maintain your focus, use technology as an aide to get what you need, filter out the garbage you don't need, then I think you can grow at warp speed compared to someone a few hundred years ago.


Shelley

PS.Anderson is an online friend of mine from another website and she directed me here to your site.

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:14:17

Well, I'm working hard to get better - but two other questions come into my mind - "What motivates me to do art?" and "What do I hope to do with the finished works?" - The primary answer to the first is, I enjoy it! The anwser to the second is to store them under the beds/behind the cupboards - tho' I do have a blog :) ;) :D

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:18:10

Hi Shelley, thanks for that well thought out comment, and welcome to the site.

>it was painterly because that was the limit of his ability
Yes, absolutely, that was the limit of my ability back then. I wanted an orange with depth and life and I got a flat orange disc.

You make a really good point. My goal from the start has been to be able to paint realistically. I may start moving a little away from that now because I think my remit may have been a little narrow, but certainly I couldn't have painted the clementine I painted today five years ago. I was sure I'd be able to though until I picked up the brush and tried! Thus began my current journey. The clementine is much closer to my goals than the orange from 2006 was.

>"I believe it is a huge advantage for artists today that our learning tools are so accessible via the internet and that we can interact with other artists so easily."
You are absolutely right, Shelley, and thanks for bringing that up. It's certainly true that we have access to so much more information than our predecessors did. The challenge, of course, as you rightly point out, is to sort the wheat from the chaff. That's one of the things I'm trying to do and share here.

Thanks again for popping in and commenting, it's great to have you aboard. One thing though - Kenneth is somebody else, my name is Paul. I don't mind at all but I'm not sure Kenneth would like being confused with me :)

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:24:40

Hi Jon,

Yes, Colvin addresses the difficult subject of motivation in the final chapter, but doesn't come to any firm conclusions, because he can't. The research hasn't been done yet (he says so himself.)

>"The anwser to the second is to store them under the beds/behind the cupboards"
Hehe, oh yes, you can't hide them all away now you've got a blog Jon :)

By the way, 30 drawings in 9 days? You make me feel lazy my friend!

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:29:45

Doh! So much for being clever. Nice to meet you, Paul.

Shelley

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:35:58

Hi Paul
I am not trying to score points about this argument of talent or not. But I had an experience when I was at art school. In my first year there was a student who was brilliant in maths and physics (A grade advanced level). This particular young student went to art school to practise design because he wanted to become an architect, since design formed an integral part of the course. To my astonishment and to our teacher as well he was so clumsy when drawing that I really felt very sorry for him because he was trying so hard but was so unsuccessful in his design. In fact he stopped from going to art school after just one year. So I think that there is some difference in people's talents. Cheers

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:36:22

Hiya Paul

Really glad you're still at it. I read a lot of me in your posts which is encouraging to be honest. I sometimes get the 'talent' quote .. if only they could see all those failures, or more positively, learnings in the loft and all my investment, more in hours than books, but those too. My payback is probably the same as when I was a lad being able to create something from nothing, or even a copy by my own hand. I still get the wow how did they achieve that effect when i look at stuff created hundreds of years ago so self motivation comes from what IS possible with practice and things I've been able to pull off now and then with it. If there's any talent it's the talent to persevere and whether you're still driven to achieve it. Here's to some great breakthroughs in 2011 .... we are going to emerge more experienced artists by the end of 2011 whatever way you look at it. Cheers Robert.

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:37:41

Heh, you plainly weren't born with the name recognition talent gene Shelley. No, it doesn't matter how much you practice, you'll always get my name wrong. There's really no hope.

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:38:13

Hi Paul, your 2011 clementine looks much more rich, tangible and juicy. It's lovely.

In reference to this comment:

"...if we're not very good at what we do then we have to take responsibility for that state of affairs ourselves. But at the same time...it means that we also have the power to change it."...

I immediately pictured Sargent muttering "Demons, demons!" as he commenced scraping off the day's work.

From the accounts I've read, it seems Sargent worked exceptionally hard at perfecting his vision and craft. I would love to have heard his opinion on talent.

Thanks for bringing up this great topic. I'm in agreement with your views. Happy New Year!

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:38:55

Hi ray,

>"I am not trying to score points about this argument of talent or not."
I really hope that my reply to you didn't come across as if I was either, that's not my intent at all. I'm interested only in having a conversation that can get us all closer to the truth.

In the case of your young student, his aptitude for science and maths might have been developed. But one year (at least according to Colvin and I would agree) would be nowhere near enough to develop a new skill, particularly one that was so different it would require him to rewire his brain to an extent. One of the points of Colvin's book is that high levels of skill are not transferable, they're 'domain specific'. maths and science are very much analytical, logical left brained disciplines. Drawing, including architectural drawing, is all about spacial awareness and very much right-brained. I would think that it would take much longer than a year to develop a skill so different from the ones that he (she?) already had.

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:44:59

Hi Robert, great to hear from you again. Yep, I'm still here - glad you are too.

>"I read a lot of me in your posts which is encouraging to be honest."
That's brilliant news. I could hope for no more.

>"if only they could see all those failures"
Exactly. Here's a great quote from Robert Genn: "There's a popular idea that some folks are blessed with talent and others not. The latter envy the former right up until they see all the hard work, sacrifice and focus."

"we are going to emerge more experienced artists by the end of 2011 whatever way you look at it.">
Indeed we will, and that's entirely in our own hands. thanks Robert.

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:51:17

Colleen, Hi! I owe you an email, I'll try and get to it tonight.

>"I would love to have heard his opinion on talent."
Me too. I have heard that he was very concerned with making his work look effortless (which he does) even though it wasn't (which I don't doubt. There are many stories of how he'd paint for days and then scrape it all off and start again.)

Posted: 2011-01-02 21:54:38

Hi Paul

Regards your 2006 and 2011 paintings, it is clear that in 2006 you had already a natural aptitude to painting. I do not compare the two, I just say that your starting point was already very good, and now you are trying to evolve, something that you are doing well.

Posted: 2011-01-02 22:36:17

Thanks Ray, that's nice of you to say. I really appreciate the encouragement, too.

But that orange wasn't my starting point. It was around the point I returned to painting after a long break. I'd already worked as a portrait painter, mural artist, and even a street artist prior to that. Unfortunately I don't have any of my older work now, or even many photos, but my skill level had dropped somewhat at that point I think. That was the point I picked up the baton I'd dropped earlier and decided to retrain.

Posted: 2011-01-02 22:52:34

Alberto Giacometti claimed "Only trying counts." You have no control over how your work will be received and most works of art will be lost and forgotten soon after their creation anyway, so the trying is the important thing.

Posted: 2011-01-02 23:05:25

Hi Paul
I always enjoy reading your blog and I must say that I too prefer the latter clementine. Probably because I also prefer more realistic and refined art.

I really think that there is something like talent. Everybody can learn to draw and paint and will get better over time with enough practice, that is a skill that anybody with enough motivation can learn. I think people with real talent have a different way of looking or seeing things and are able to put that on canvas together with the learned skills. You may think you have no talent, only skills, but I disagree totally, you have a wonderful way of seeing the big picture when you put your objects together. You really have a sensitivity for your subjects that far surpasses just skill.

I wonder if there is not some extra gene in an artist. For instance they have found that people who can dance well have a gene that other people lack. On my mother's side of the family more that half of the family are artistic in one way or another and I can assure you its not because they were nurtured as a child. Most of them started painting or drawing in their adult years. It must be more than just skill, an urge to create maybe? An extra gene? What made people like Michealangelo or Rubens or even Van Gogh keep on going - surely not for money?

I really believe that people are created with different talents to make society interesting and diverse. How boring would it be if everybody was the same or could reach the same level of competency with the same level of practice.

anyhow, keep on posting, its good to be part of your journey and thanks for sharing it with us

Posted: 2011-01-02 23:38:32

As ever, brilliantly precise- Is it Speed who makes the statement (and I paraphrase,) '...that talent is only the love for a thing...'? And as I'm sure that you know, love can make a man (or woman) capable of almost anything. Happy New Year, man.

Posted: 2011-01-03 00:15:13

Hi Decker, that's certainly true about art being forgotten. There's a great blog on <> a href="http://goldenagepaintings.blogspot.com/"Victorian and Edwardian paintings, most now forgotten. there a few sentimental stinkers in there to be fair, but also some real gems by unknown (at least to me) painters.

Hi Wilma, thanks for the comment.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on the notion of talent. That's interesting about the 'dancer' gene though, I looked it up.

The two genes in question, which were found in the research to be more "strongly expressed" (i.e. exaggerated - not only dancers have them) in dancers are thought to be connected with a disposition towards spiritual experience and social communication and bonding behaviours. Someone with these predispositions is more likely to be a dancer since dance incorporates both of these things.

Two points here: firstly, the genes concerned don't make people better dancers, just more likely to be dancers. They're not responsible for dancing talent. Secondly, which of our available genes are expressed is dependent on our experiences. So do the dancers dance because these genes have been expressed in them, or have the genes been expressed in them because they dance? The research doesn't address that, and offers no conclusions.

It might seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but there's no suggestion there that dancers have genes that non-dancers don't, or that these genes (which are more fully expressed in dancers) help them to dance better.

Of course we're at the outer reaches of research here, in both genetics and neuroscience. And of course, we'll all tend to choose our own proofs, I do it too. But we do need to be careful about drawing conclusions that the research doesn't support. That research doesn't back up the idea that there is such a thing as innate talent.

Thanks for the comment though Wilma, that was an interesting bit of information and it got my cogs turning, even at this late hour :)

>"How boring would it be if everybody was the same or could reach the same level of competency with the same level of practice."
Perhaps. But how wonderful would it be if people realised that there was almost no limit to what they could achieve, that they weren't limited by their genetic make up? That you don't need an inborn talent to be good at art? Or sport, or golf, or music, or maths? How wonderful would it be if everyone could experience the same joy in creativity that we do? How liberating would it be if no-one ever said again, "I can't draw" but said only "I haven't practised enough to draw well yet?"

I think I've gone as far as I can go with discussions on whether talent exists or not now, especially since I didn't want to get pulled into it in the first place! I guess it was inevitable though, I've only got myself to blame :) We'll all make our own decisions about that and I don't really expect to change anybody's mind.

The message here is intended to be a positive one: that with the right kind of practice, we can develop our skills beyond anything we thought possible, if we want to. That is no ceiling imposed by our natures.

Posted: 2011-01-03 01:22:34

Hey Shaun, good to hear from you. Hope things are well. I've got some stuff to send you via email, when I can get a minute to do it.

>"talent is only the love for a thing"
I love that quote. There is no end to that man's wisdom. I'm going to tattoo it on my cat's forehead so I'll be reminded of it every morning when he wakes me up. Well, maybe not, I'm tempted to put it somewhere prominent in my studio at least.

Happy new year to you too my friend. Here's to Puvis du Chavannes, more beautiful work from your easel and more sales.

Posted: 2011-01-03 01:30:40

Hi Paul,I have read the book and to a certain extent agree with it BUT I also have two kids.

Both learned to play the piano. Their Granddad provided the instrument, we drove them to the (shared) lesson once a week. No one ever asked them to practice.

One boy worked hard, he really wanted to be good at it. The younger one wasn't bothered and didn't practice much. He kept up anyway. It didn't seem fair.

Eventually the bug bit the younger one and he began to work. Really work. Now we're watching magic unfold here. He just played before a crowd of 500 at Govt House. He's writing waltzes and sonatas. He's 14.

My other son is about to grade for his black belt in karate...

After witnessing this, I believe talent does exist but it's wasted without the work. The real question is whether those without the natural advantage can catch up if they work hard enough?

Posted: 2011-01-03 02:26:51

Hi Amanda, thanks for sharing your experiences with your boys.

>"he began to work. Really work."
Is this not the key?

>"The real question is whether those without the natural advantage can catch up if they work hard enough?"
Well, I thing the real question is whether there is such a thing as natural advantage at all. I don't think there is, at least not in the way that most people think of it. I'm not doubting for a moment what you say about your boys, but they are different people, with different experiences.

Either way, it sounds like you've got a couple of great kids (I almost said "very talented" there...)

Posted: 2011-01-03 02:39:15

Here is Sadie Valerie's work in 2004 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qfB18HED428/TQI7_y37sII/AAAAAAAAXaM/C4Y_xAz5Gkw/s1600/sadie_still-life_2004.JPG and her work now http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qfB18HED428/TPaKLrZrQ7I/AAAAAAAAXY8/s2cm5Q7-gnE/s1600/sadie-valeri_friends-of-a-feather_12x16_oil-on-p_sm.jpg
This woman has dedicated herself to her training and the results have been remarkable. What an inspiration for us all. On the other hand, I have seen artists who's work looks the same as it did 20 years ago.

Posted: 2011-01-03 06:06:56

Sorry let me try those links again 2004 painting
and 2010 painting

Posted: 2011-01-03 06:15:39

Hi Wendy,

Thanks very much for those links. Sadie is a great example of what can be achieved with the right kind of practice I think. It's wonderful how far she's come, especially since so much of it was through self directed study.

I think you're right though that's it's perfectly possible to work hard and get nowhere, if the training isn't well focused. Colvin stresses that a big part of development is external feedback, since other people can identify the skills we need to work on most more easily than we can ourselves.

We'll tend to practice things we can already do well because doing so makes us feel good. But the stuff we need to practice is the stuff we can't do well yet, the stuff that stretches us just beyond our comfort zone. that's what he calls 'deliberate practice' which is much harder work.

It's not just about the hours. That's why I've always thought the fashion for the 10,000 hour rule a little mistaken. !0,000 hours practicing something you can already do well won't help you to get any better at the stuff that you don't do well. It's all about progression, and the goal posts are continually shifting.

Posted: 2011-01-03 12:13:48

Hey Paul,

Interesting food for thought! Thank you for sharing them, your struggles and your progression with us.

The end of the year has me cleaning house, so I've been looking at older work (what? no auto link to sites of the commenters?), and it's refreshing to see growth and progression. Yours shows a maturation between the two.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you about the whole 'talent' thing; action and practice (guided and solo) are key.

But with that growth through focused practice also needs to be a willingness to open up and let go. I'm sure you've seen many artist's works get looser, freer and more abstract as they mature. Granted, it's not just slopping paint; many had to start with fine-tuned representational art before they could spread their wings.

I like how you've added in your very last comment how "the goal posts are continually shifting." It never seem s to be a single linear path of growth, does it.

Thanks again for all you do!! And Happy New Year!

(Seriously, I'd like to see the works of some of your commenters. Any way to allow us to include blog/website url while commenting?)

Posted: 2011-01-03 13:00:17

Hi Tracy,

>"I'm sure you've seen many artist's works get looser, freer and more abstract as they mature."
Yes. Rembrandt, Titian and Velazquez are good examples of that. Three of the greatest painters of all time if you ask me too.

>"many had to start with fine-tuned representational art before they could spread their wings."
Yes I think you've nailed it there.

>"It never seems to be a single linear path of growth, does it."
Not ever no, but I guess that's part of what keeps it so interesting.

As for links, that's a great idea and I'll have a look at building it in. For better or Worse this site is completely manually built, I do all the coding etc myself. You have no idea how long it took me to build the comments feature! It would have been easier to use wordpress or something of course but I wanted the flexibility to do whatever I thought it needed as it went along, so I hand-coded it.

I will build that in though. Probably I'll add a field to the comment form so that people can add a web site address if they want to when they leave a comment. Do you think that would be a good way to do it?

Posted: 2011-01-03 15:57:34

Great Post! I, too, was extremely shy and self concious and started drawing in the first grade after a teacher bragged on a drawing I did. I learned over the years that the better I was, the more attention I got. But, with me it was Superman Comics. My nephew, Gasey Baugh, visited me a lot, so he drew to get my attention. He won a scholorship to college as a baseball pitcher but turned it down to paint because he enjoyed the attention. He was fortunate enough to meet Richard Schmid, who gave him a foot in the door. So, I agree with you, Paul. Have a safe and happy New Year....Helen

Posted: 2011-01-03 19:43:49

Hi Helen, thanks for your input.

Casey paints wonderfully, and at a young age too, so from what you say he would be a very good example of someone who was helped along by a nurturing environment.

Posted: 2011-01-03 20:02:33

Seems like tenacity is the name of the game for most enterprises, except where actual physical limitations come into play? I, for one, will never be an olympic quality pole vaulter. Well maybe if I were on the moon instead?

Anyhow, very nice snapshot of your progression and how's it called, 'turning form'? I very much like the insight you've always given on this site. I think your posts and a recent book by Juliette Aristides are my favourite allies in the inward battle of betterment necessary to thumb my nose at the notion of good art being produced by only the 'talented'.

Posted: 2011-01-04 03:16:37

Hi Eric,

>"Well maybe if I were on the moon instead?"
Hehe, yes, maybe even at 5'7" I'd have a chance of being a world class basketball player there too. As long as there was no-one taller nearby.

>"turning form"
I guess so, yes. I've found that that skill came came as a free extra when I was figuring out something else: how colour reacts to light, that is, how it changes across the surface of an object as it moves from light to shadow. I'll be posting some exercises for that at some pint soon, very like the value exercises I did where I painted a cube, a sphere and then a real object all of the same local value. They were really useful and taught me a lot about form and value.

>"I think your posts and a recent book by Juliette Aristides are my favourite allies in the inward battle of betterment"
What a lovely comment. Thanks very much Eric, I really appreciate you saying that. The morning, though still dark, seems a little brighter.

Posted: 2011-01-04 07:39:43

Hi Paul,
well whether or not such a thing as innate talent exists I agree that for practical purposes we should think and behave as though it does not. That mindset enables us to take responsibility for our successes and failures and encourages us to keep going. As you suggest there has never been a case of someone reaching the top of the tree in art or sport for that matter without a hell of a lot of hardwork whatever their natural gifts may or may not have been. I remember Seve Ballesteros was always quoted as being the golfer with the greatest natural talent (pre Tiger) but he once pointed out he started serious practice when he was 3 years old, with, of course, a very encouraging father. Ah well, if I dont want to blame myself I can always blame my parents!

Posted: 2011-01-04 11:36:35

Hi David, thanks for the comment.

>"for practical purposes we should think and behave as though it does not."
I couldn't have put it better myself. That's my main drift, really, it's more about mental attitude than anything. I agree.

>"he started serious practice when he was 3 years old, with, of course, a very encouraging father."
Sounds familiar. There's a lot about Tiger in the Colvin book, he was exactly the same. He was playing golf before he could walk. Literally.

>"if I dont want to blame myself I can always blame my parents!"
Yeah! Brilliant eh? Genes are so impersonal it's just no fun to blame them. But we can really take it out on our parents! ;-)

Posted: 2011-01-04 13:08:42

Paul,
Thank you very much for keeping me posted on your progress and thoughts. This article on Talent is raising many questions and we’re all confronted with this. For me talent is nature, it is like a seed of a tree. It determines its specie, but only with determination and proper environment can it develop into a great tree. I see talent as the colour of what have been constructed with determination and tools. In art, moving body, spirit and soul with matter can take many shapes. Your art is doing it already and both oranges, so pleasing to look at, proves that it can be so in all stage of someone’s work. I hope to see your art grow for a long long time.
Yvan Breton.

Posted: 2011-01-04 13:10:41

Thanks for contributing your thoughts Yvan.

By the way, is this you? Really nice drawings.

(see Tracey, I'm trying...)

Posted: 2011-01-04 22:45:25

Hi Paul, I agree with your little article, but I do think that some people have more ease at seeing as an artist needs to "see" and so their work might take off technically, but as for the heart of the artist to show on his/her canvas, that is available to all and brings forth the beauty!!

The orange and clementine do appear to be two different styles with the difference being that the clementine, its branch and leaves are gorgeous - glorious color beautifully muted, and the orange is very pretty but its surroundings are a little confusing. Thank-you so much for keeping on going!! A blessed new year to you and yours, Cl-Marie USA

Posted: 2011-01-04 23:28:29

Hi Claudia-Marie, nice to see you again.

Have you read drawing on the right side of the brain by Betty Edwards? It's proof positive that almost anyone can learn the basic skills of drawing, and in short order too. there's a really inspiring page towards the beginning of the book where she shows some students first attempts at a self portrait, and then what they did with the same subject only five days later.

The point is that the progression is incredible in such a short time. It shows how careful we need to be when making assumptions about learning to draw and what it requires I think.

Here's some of the portraits. Bear in mind we're talking about 5 days instruction here.

Thanks for the nice comment on the clementine. You have a great 2011 too.

Posted: 2011-01-05 08:14:51

This is a debate that's going on for a while now, and as usual, I come out somewhere in the middle.

While I believe that anyone can improve with enough practice, I don't think that everyone was born equal.

People may not want to face that reality, it is a tough world out there. But I don't think that the average person could end up to be equal to Sargent (insert your favorite painter) no matter how much, or what kind of work they put in. They could end up quite good at making pictures, but there is something more that needs to happen before that final level.

I think it is a tougher sell with art, because judging good art is more relative. Technical ability is only part of it. But switch it to athletics or academics, it's much more easily grasped.

I have two daughters. The oldest always struggled with math. I tried all different ways to teach her at home, and the concepts were very hard to grasp. The younger one picked up every shortcut and concept quite easily. It's pretty common I think that some people can pick up on Algebra without trouble, and some people just don't get all those A's and B's. They could work hard and be competent, but they could not get above a certain level.

I could easily extend this to athletics, but I think I've beaten this point into the ground enough.

What I believe is that there is a ratio of: what you are born with (nature) + the environment (nurture) + your drive or the amount of work you put in. Add those up and that is the level you can achieve.

Posted: 2011-01-06 15:18:00

Great post!! I wrote a similar post called "talent is a myth" a while back, and got a surprising amount of resistance to the idea. I think if talent does exist, it's so tiny and marginal, and SO much work is required to bring it to fruition, that it does not matter anyway. The main thing is... "How badly do you want to get better?" That matters much more than talent.

Posted: 2011-01-07 06:19:36

Hi Jesse, thanks for the comment.

>"People may not want to face that reality"
I think the fact that we're much more responsible for our own achievements than we might like to think is a much tougher reality to face, and one more commonly avoided. It's comforting to think that so-and-so is better than us because of an innate talent they were born with. The reality is more probably that they worked harder and had more favourable circumstances to do that work in.

>"But I don't think that the average person could end up to be equal to Sargent"
Well, that's where we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I believe that almost anyone, given the right circumstances and a healthy dose of motivation, could be just that.

>"I think it is a tougher sell with art, because judging good art is more relative."
That's very true I think. Particularly in an art world where there is no consensus on what makes a good painter, and when the contemporary fashion is for 'de-skilling,' and the most accomplished artist is the least skilled, there really is no yardstick to measure against.

Colvin implicitly admits this in his book by talking primarily about musicians, writers, business people and athletes. the only concrete example of a painting he gives is 'Demoiselles D'Avignion' by Picasso in the chapter on invention. the book breaks down a little there for me because Picasso was deliberately producing and unskilled, 'primitive' painting. I don't expect this situation to last for ever though. The reassessment has already begun I think.

Posted: 2011-01-07 07:54:54

Hi Sadie, wonderful from to hear from you again. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on the wonderful work you're doing with 'Women painting Women.' Absolutely brilliant and it's long overdue that women artists got more attention I think.

>"and got a surprising amount of resistance to the idea."
Yes, I've been a little surprised myself. But I think perhaps we need to remember that entrenched ideas take some shifting and that the idea of talent is particularly well entrenched in art.

>"How badly do you want to get better?" That matters much more than talent.
Brilliantly put. I couldn't agree more.

Posted: 2011-01-07 08:02:50

Hy Paul,
Yes, it's my site
Thanks
Yvan

Posted: 2011-01-07 13:27:46

Hi Paul, Thank-you for the suggestion of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain - I've got it and will read it!! Bless you and yours always, Cl-Marie USA

Posted: 2011-01-09 22:39:01

Great! Let me know what you think, drop me an email. I think there's some really fascinating stuff in there.

Posted: 2011-01-09 23:13:43

Just an FYI for anyone reading this post, I've just tracked down Sadie Valerie's excellent post on talent being a myth, which expresses similar sentiments to those I've posted here.

the central idea that she has is the same as mine I think, that sitting around worrying about whether or not we have talent isn't going to get us anywhere. It's unproductive and ultimately defeatists, and is the stomping-ground for all our worst fears and doubts.

I'd recommend reading Sadie's post here:
Talent is a Myth.

Here is my favourite quote from it:

"I don't know if I have talent. I know I have passion. I think passion is much more important."
I agree Sadie.

Posted: 2011-01-13 08:08:15

http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/instruments2.aspx?partid=0

Above is the link to take a temperament test. It's been quite awhile since I studied this issue, but temperament is something you're born with. It defines the type of learner you are, your position as an introvert or extrovert, and many other 'personality' traits. Delve further in the site and you'll find more explanations of temperatment. Temperament doesn't mean you're 'born an artist,' but it means you may be predisposed to artistic endeavors. Or, that you're born an engineer, etc. Take the test, it's fun as well as informative and great for your kids to take...if you have them.

Posted: 2011-01-17 16:46:58

Hi rebo,

Thanks for the comment. I haven't come across the Keirsey personality test before but have done the Myers/Briggs one some years ago, which it looks like Keirsey has extrapolated. They both appear to be based on the Jungian personality types. I was an INFJ on the Myers Briggs if I remember right, and I can recognise some of the traits it describes in myself. One of the things that makes me a little sceptical about these kind of tests is that the results always tell you about the positive aspects of your personality. They've never told me that I get whiney when I'm tired, but I do :)

>"temperament is something you're born with."
I think it might be an idea to look a little more closely at that assumption. The existence of these tests don't confirm that these personalities are set at birth, neither do they pretend to. In order to prove that, you'd have to test new born infants, and of course, they wouldn't be able to answer the questions.

Neuroscience, particularly research done over the last ten years or so, is telling us that we're a mix of our genetic dispositions and our experiences. A bit of nature and a bit of nurture. But it's not quite that simple. It seems likely that we're born with a set of potentialities which are inherited. Which of those potentialities comes to the fore in our personalities - which of our genes get 'expressed' - depends on our experiences. So our personalities are the result of the interaction between our genes and our experiences.

I think I've already mentioned this book, but I'd recommend anyone who's interested in finding out more about what the most recent research on the formation of our personalities can tell us to read The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are by Daniel Siegel.

For instance, how about the finding that the old division between emotion and rationality is entirely mistaken? That emotion is a central part of logic and reasoning - in fact they spring from it and can't function without it? Intrigued? Anything by Damasio is well worth reading from that point of view too, for example Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Fascinating book.

>"Temperament doesn't mean you're 'born an artist,' but it means you may be predisposed to artistic endeavors."
Yes, I wouldn't disagree with the idea of predispositions. But whether these predispositions manifest themselves in our personalities will likely be decided by whether or not we have experiences that bring them out. At least, that's what the neuroscientists are telling us and they've spent a bit longer on this than you or I :) (Unless you're a neuroscientist of course, in which case I apologise...)

Posted: 2011-01-17 21:05:11

I like your post about talent. I have written similar things in my blog -- perhaps not so eloquently. http://dearartist.blogspot.com/2009/01/talent-and-competence.html I will subscribe.
I originally looked up your post on Charles Blague Drawing course and would like to blog about 5 paragraphs from it with your permission (and link to the full article.

Posted: 2011-01-21 16:04:23

2006 and 2011 both suffer from the same problem, poor edge quality. The contour of the form of each orange is gratuitously sharp, making them look like paper cut-outs that have been pasted on. What's the difference between a good Velasquez and a poor one, his control of EDGES. Same with Ribera and any other master you wish.

Posted: 2011-01-21 17:23:12

I agree with you Paul to a some extent. However some people are more driven at earlier ages and are lucky to be born into families of artist or musicians. Andrew Wyeth and Antonio Garcia Lopez come to mind. Lopez was one of the youngest painters ever to be excepted into the Academy in Madrid. I've seen a few drawings he did at 12 that are better than most people with training do at 24.

That said one can get there with hard work and vision.

John Coltrane is an example of that. He was a pretty average sax player at age 19 0r 20. Through years of practicing about 12 hours or more a day he developed into the musician that now has a place in history as one of the main innovators of jazz.

Paul the 2011 painting is light years away from the one in 2006. Keep up the good work mate.

Posted: 2011-01-27 02:50:31

And Robert Johnson, they say, sold his soul to the devil in return for the ability to play blues guitar, somewhat easier in the short run at least!

Posted: 2011-01-27 08:46:41

Hi jeffe, thanks for the comment.

>"some people are more driven at earlier ages"
Definitely. And some are just more driven at all stages of their lives. I agree that motivation makes a huge difference, probably the most difference. Motivation and 'natural talent' are two very different things though of course. In his book, Colvin devotes his last chapter to motivation but it's ultimately disappointing. His conclusion is that we don't understand it yet, which I think is a bit of a cop out.

There are some good ideas about where motivation comes from in this book though:
The Art of Changing the Brain.

>"some people...are lucky to be born into families of artist or musicians."
Agree again. that point also backs up Colvin's ideas about talent and he devotes much space to underlining it's importance in the book. Tiger Wood's Dad had him swinging a golf club before he could walk.

Thanks for the nice comment on the painting. I'm a big fan of John Coltrane by the way :)

Hi David,

>"And Robert Johnson, they say, sold his soul to the devil"
Yeah I tried that but mine was in too shabby a state to be worth anything and the deal was turned down. Just have to keep slogging away I guess...

Posted: 2011-01-27 19:14:50

Paul, I just read "Talent is Overrated", not because I didn't beleive you ;^) but because I think I needed an addiional pep talk. My passion for art as child was squashed by a (jealous?) mother (an artist herself) who threw hissy fits whenever I drew.
Anyway, I don't know how much lost time I can make up, but I too firmly believe that hard work and practice makes the difference.

Thanks for your posts, they are wonderful an inspiring as always.

Posted: 2011-01-29 23:03:14

Hi Lisa, nice to hear from you again.

That's a real shame about your childhood aspirations. You know, it's surprising how many artists I've talked to have had similar experiences, for one reason or another.

For a long time I was hung up on my own experience along those lines. But, like you, I realised that sitting around grinding my axe wasn't going to change anything, I'd still be sitting in the same place, just with a very sharp axe.

In the end I think that it's not so much about making up for lost time, not really. Progress is enough, and is it's own reward.

>"Thanks for your posts"
Not at all, thank you for coming back to comment.

By the way, your site is extremely cool. The post about flesh depth I thought was fascinating. And I want a skull swizzle stick, even though I don't know what a swizzle stick is.

Can I add a link to your site here?

Posted: 2011-01-31 21:14:33

Paul,
Thanks, I'm really happy you like my site. And I would be *thrilled* if you posted a link. Really, that would be an honor.

Yes, I got sidetracked with art for a long time and joined the Navy instead of pursusing art. I just never considered that being an artist was a reality for me. But the ironic thing is, if I had gone to art school instead of the service, I wouldn't be a forensic artist now, which is a field I LOVE, and really is the thing I was meant to do.

Joining the Navy set up a 20-year-long chain of events that put me in the position I am now. So, there you go! I've been a forensic artist 10 years now, with 10 to go to retirement. No complaints whatsoever here!

Finding you site was really a boost too, because I felt like I was they only one that had gotten away from art for so long. Right now all my time is forensic art and home, I need to make more time for my own artwork, and seeing how hard you work is inspiring.

By the way, you HAVE to have a swizzle stick (especially one with a skull!) because they are absolutely essential for stirring your mixed drink :^) Seriously, I'll send you one if you say where, or, I'm actually going to be in London with my sister next month! We planned it spur of the moment, our husbands aren't able to come but they just told us to go an have fun! Can't wait!

Posted: 2011-02-04 14:05:22

Hi Lisa,

>I'm really happy you like my site.
oh, I more than like it, I heart it :) I think it's a really interesting perspective on head construction that all representational artists, not just forensic ones, can learn something from.

The cadaver images are a bit disturbing though, so here's fair warning folks - don't read the post about eye positioning over dinner. Or breakfast.

Here's a link to Lisa's site on Forensic Art. Her blog is fascinating, and I particularly liked this post on tissue depth.

Thanks for sharing Lisa.

Cool that you're going to be in London! Send me an email when you're around, maybe we can meet up for a coffee or something.

Posted: 2011-02-09 07:47:27

Thanks for the link Paul! :^) And I apologize for the cadaver images without giving fair warning. I'm just sort of used to looking at things like that. I forget it "icks" people out!

I'll let you know when we're in town, that would be fun to meet up....and you can stir your coffee with a skull swizzle stick! :^P

Posted: 2011-02-13 21:56:55

>and you can stir your coffee with a skull swizzle stick!
Hehe! that would absolutely make my day :)

Posted: 2011-02-13 22:09:27

Just found your site and back-reading. Good reading! Just wanted to share a discovery that I made in regard to losing time painting due to depression. I have struggled with depression my whole life and finally, finally found help that didn't come in a prescription bottle. I read the book The Mood Cure by Julia Ross. Following the guidelines in the book has turned my life around. Highly suggest it for anyone who doesn't want to lose time in their life to depression.

Posted: 2011-03-12 01:06:10

Hi Karla,

Thanks for popping in and commenting. Julia Ross' book looks interesting. We recently changed our diet to include more oily fish, and I've also started eating omega-3 seeds regularly, linseed and sunflower seeds etc, and interestingly I've found I've been having less mood swings lately. Which is good, because it means I paint more :) I hadn't connected it with the diet changes, but I wonder if the changes have helped.

Posted: 2011-03-12 14:38:27

I think you would be very interested in this book which I recently read: Bounce: Mozart, Federer, Picasso, Beckham, and the Science of Success by Mathew Syed. In it, he made some of the same arguments that you made early in the post. He makes the case that for any endeavor, it takes 10,000 hours of directed or focused practice to become "world class". Good luck, Jere

Posted: 2011-03-23 16:10:57

Hi Jere, thanks for popping in and commenting.

A book recommendation, my favourite! The reviews are excellent and it seems to be in the same vein as the Colvin book. I can't resist a good read, I just ordered it even though I'm already over my new book budget limit for March :) Thanks very much for the heads up.

I think I should really balance all this stuff now with a book about genetics though as part of my May book budget lest I become one-sided.

Anyone got any good recommendations for a book on genetics to balance these out?

Posted: 2011-03-23 20:48:15

It's certainly an interesting position and I can agree with it somewhat but I think it is, perhaps, the degree to which you define 'talent.' I'll take myself as an example. Part of me is a songwriter and, like you, I'm now 45 and have been writing songs constantly, for about thirty years. I now know that I can write a song, and a good song, but I still can't write anything as comparable to Paul McCartney, or John Lennon, or Bob Dylan or Cole Porter or many, many of the greats. I can write (in my estimation) a great song but it's only great from MY point of view. Maybe that's all you need I guess, but I'll never be revered as a masterful songwriter by anyone. I have the diligence and I love to write songs but I don't have the 'talent' to take that to a greater level.

Posted: 2011-04-08 13:55:55

I agree completely. For some reason I wanted to be an artist at a very early age, but I certainly was not all that talented. I think, at best, the desire for talent, or the inclination is inborn for some people. I'm like you, although older at 52, trying to work up the talent I'd like to have before the end comes. When people tell me "you're lucky to be so talented" I tell them I was lucky that I've been able to work at it for 40 years, but I'm not really all that talented. Nowhere near where I'd like to be.

Posted: 2011-05-28 00:26:29

Really sorry for the late reply guys, I've only just noticed your comments.

tennysoneehemingway, I do take your point. I think the question is whether these greats were born with a talent to write particularly good songs, or whether their experiences developed it. I'm not sure there's any way to answer that question definitively, but for myself I must leave open the possibility that their 'talent' isn't in born but acquired. We're all, to an extent, an amalgam of our experiences, and our experiences are so different, even for kids within the same family, that what we ordinarily call talent may come from a very different source. So many greats had personal backgrounds that provided fertile soil in which their accomplishments could grow. Mozart, Picasso, Tiger Woods...

Hi Bill,

>I agree completely.
Phew! I thought I was alone for a minute there, and maybe a bit mad :-)

>I think, at best, the desire for talent, or the inclination is inborn for some people.
I like that. Wise words. Desire and motivation make such a difference. Motivation is at least as big a mystery as 'talent' I think. Volvin skirts the issue completely, the main failing of his book, but not all authors do. It's an area I'm intensely interested in and trying to find out more about.

Posted: 2011-06-29 21:07:54

Argue for your limitations and surely they are yours.

To wit: Say you don't have the talent and nope you sure don't. (and by talent I mean skill) Say that you have no limitations and you do not. It's as simple as that.

The appeal to "Talent" is the refuge of people who do not WANT to do whatever it takes to achieve greatness.

For example tennysoneehemingway...I'm sorry but Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan? These are your examples of "Real Talent"? I mean these guys were skilled at the making of their art and they existed at the right time and in the right place...but NOTHING MORE.

If you're not selling your music in Nashville it's because you're not trying hard enough. Or you are trying too hard in the wrong ways. So you can write good songs...are you good at glad-handing? Are you good at selling yourself TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE? Maybe you're working on all the wrong skills.

Of course everybody wants to argue for the existence of true "Genius" because it lasts alla you sad sacks off the hook for being mediocre. I too am mediocre at what I do but at least I am starting with the knowledge that it's my own damn fault...and the remedy is my own damn responsibility.

Love!

Posted: 2011-07-08 04:22:25

Hi, thank you ! I liked this post ..... I believe this post. I picked up a pencil Feb 1, 2011 and drew a sketch of my husband after a brain switch. Work finally got to me and I had to become a different person. I am documenting my changes by dating all my pieces. The only thing I would add to your message to my personal mission is that today I am not the person I was yesterday, nor the person I will be tomorrow. Different, yes.... better? But I was not born with a 'talent' to draw and paint, I am exploring it each day. It is part of who I am that day only.

Posted: 2011-08-16 00:19:48

I believe in "Talents do exists. However..." sentence.

What I mean is everyone can learn almost anything if they try hard enough. But that doesn't mean they will create a masterpiece. It really doesn't matter THAT much that Mozart had such a father - thousands of people can be drilled from the beginning to do some things and only a very few of them will hopefully create something outstanding.

For me talent is a different thing that ability. Ability can be achieved by almost everyone, but talent - for me - is something in the core of one's existance - something that can't really be chosen, like your parents, health condition and such. It's a bit to hard to explain it foreign language (english), but what I'm saying is - we're not totally blank cards. Yes, we can achieve almost any ability we desire, but the true desire itself is not something that can be chosen, but rather something that must be seek and found.

Also, I like the 2006 version much better. It's so pleasant for the eye.

Posted: 2012-03-09 16:07:33

Good example of what I'm saying is Betty Edward's son. He really achieved abilities for drawing (and was drilled by mother!), but obviously he has no talent for self-portraits.

I'll sustaing my beliefs - you can train thousands of people to wriste symphonies from their early years, but - even when a high motivation takes place - only very few of them will make themselves immortal through music like Mozart of Bach.

So whenever someone say to me "talent don't exist", I say: "you mistake talent with ability".

Edward's book was translated to my first language as "discover your talent" when it should be titled "acquire the ability to draw".

You can learn to write and draw, but you can't learn to create an immortal masterpiece. Mozart and Bach are immortal not because of the mere ability - no matter how great, but something much more, something truly ethereal. Either you see it, or you don't.

Posted: 2012-03-09 17:08:42

Guess we'll just have to differ on this Kasia :-)

Posted: 2012-03-09 19:54:56

Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers: The Story of Success" is a discussion of this very topic, and he agrees with you! It's a very interesting book.

Posted: 2012-08-05 21:24:31

Thanks Abbie. I've read that book and enjoyed it very much. It's particularly interesting how much weight Gladwell puts on finding yourself on fertile ground.

Another excellent book I've read lately along similar lines is Bounce by Matthew Syed, also highly recommended!

Posted: 2012-08-05 21:33:38