I don’t believe in talent.
I don’t believe that anyone is born with a natural sense of colour, or with a natural sense of design.
I don’t believe that anyone is born with a natural ability to draw.
Or make music, or play football, or anything else for that matter. I don’t believe in talent. Particularly in relation to representational drawing and painting, I believe that the skills we need to produce beautiful work are learned and perfected over time, even by the ‘greats.’
I think that the greats are (or were) the greats because of two things: high levels of personal motivation, that helped them to keep working when most people fall by the wayside, and secondly, being lucky enough to find themselves in nurturing environments from an early age.
And the second of these is probably the most telling.
But What About Geniuses? What About Mozart, Picasso?
Mozart is often used as an example of innate talent. But he was born to a father that not only composed for a living, he also taught music. Mozart was drilled from a very young age by a father who was obsessed with seeing his son succeed. Mozart’s early compositions, often touted as evidence of his incredible precocity and talent, were certainly not great symphonies and were very likely edited and revised by his more experienced father. He didn’t compose the beautiful work we know him for now until he was a young adult, by which time he’d already put in thousands upon thousands of hours of controlled practice.
Picasso is a similar example. There are many documented cases of extremely high achievers being born into such nurturing environments, and much research has borne this out. But environments like that are rare, and not all people so luckily born will take advantage of their good fortune.
That’s why achievement at the really top levels is rare, not because a very few are blessed with a gift that the rest of us don’t have.
You Liberate Yourself By Accepting Responsibility For Your Own Achievements
The idea of innate talent is particularly well established in the arts, which is unfortunate for us painters.
But we don’t have to fall in with accepted wisdom.
Accepting instead that great artists are made and not born has two results, one very sobering and the other liberating:
- It means that we are all responsible for our own levels of achievement – at least to a larger extent than we might feel comfortable admitting. That’s sobering, because 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’s liberating, because it means that we also have the power to change it.
That’s the position I start from.
I came to this realisation in 2006, when I’d only been on this road for a few months, and wrote about it in a post entitled ‘There are no short cuts.’ Reading that post again now, five years later, the only thing I’d change is that I no longer believe that I was born with a talent for drawing.
As a child I was better than most of the kids I knew, that’s true, but it’s in no way proof of innate talent. I drew a lot when I was little so I had a head start, simple as that. Unfortunately, like the hare, I sat down and fell asleep for a while, for far too long.
Now I’m trying to make up for lost time with a whole heap of other stuff to deal with at the same time, bills and a job. Such is life.
I’d encourage anyone who doubts this point of view to read Talent Is Overrated
But be warned: if you believe that some people are born naturally gifted, be prepared to sacrifice a few of your sacred cows on the alter of your ego. Once you’ve done that, you’ll find that you’re in a position to really take control of your own progress. And if your experience with the book is anything like mine, you’ll find yourself inspired.
Your Only Limitation Is The Amount Of Time You Have Left And What You Choose To Do With It
I know I’ll never be a Velazquez or a Veronese, I’m already 45. They were already Ferraris in their teens and I’m an old banger wheezing slowly up the hill. That doesn’t matter to me.
Although I know I’ll never reach close to those heights I guarantee you this: by the time I pop my clogs I’ll be a hell of a lot better than I am now. What matters to me is seeing how far I can go from where I am today, and from where I’ll be tomorrow. Of course there are some things that are outside our control, but that doesn’t stop us working on the things that aren’t.
I plan to post at more length about this before too long, and to develop this theme over the rest of this new year in both the posts I write here and the work and practice that I do.
I was in two minds whether to leave the comments open on this post. I have left them open because I like to hear from people so much, and I learn so much from the comments that everybody leaves here. But I will say this: I don’t want to get into a long discussion about whether or not talent exists with people who think it does. For myself, I refuse to accept that limitation. I will not believe that there is a ceiling to how good I can get that’s enforced by any limitation I can’t control except time. If you believe that there is then that’s entirely up to you of course, but don’t expect me to argue with you about it, I’ve got too much practice to do.
This site is for people who want to get better at what they do, and who believe that with practice, they can.
Now I know from experience that I’ll have times when I’m too down to work, when I lose hope and give up temporarily. I have bouts of depression that regularly floor me (there, I said it) but that won’t stop me trying. 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.
If you feel the same then hop in, there’s room in this old banger for plenty more.
It doesn’t seem right to post without adding a picture, so here’s an orange from around the time of my ‘no short cuts’ post and a sketch of a clementine I did today. It’s as fair an illustration as I know how to find of what can be achieved with time and practice.
The Keys to Colour - Free 6 step email course
Learn how to:
- mix any colour accurately
- see the value of colours
- lighten or darken a colour without messing it up
- paint with subtle, natural colour
i like the 2006 version.it is lively, bright and inviting.
i would purchase this one rather than the 2011 version.
regards,
marie
Me to, i look the 2006 version more!
I love electronics. My mother and father were not even the least close to electronics. My dad was a preacher and mother … a house wife.
I FOUND electronics when I was 12 years old and developed my interest.
I love it sooooo much that I lasted over 50 years in broadcast engineering, “which I accidentally found”.
I’m now retired. Made terrible money until later years. Made GOOD money and retired.
Only my love of TV broadcast engineering kept me going until I was 70 years old. I didn’t want to retire.
I finally retired and have found another love.
I BELIEVE that our brains are “wired for different things”. I would NOT EVER enjoy being an artist, an attorney, a banker, …and many other things. And my family NEVER guided me towards my “destiny”…. Just “SUPPORTED” my choice.
So you may be “partly correct…but not to the extent you believe. In my humble opinion.
Bob Hardie
I’d suggest reading “Soft Wired” by Michael Merzenich to catch up with the latest in neuroscience regarding this. We’re not hard wired for anything except a few basic instincts, it seems. Personally I find much to fell positive about in that, although not everybody does 🙂
All I want to say is “Thank you”. I am old and have dreamt of creating my own art all my life. I believed because all my family was so artistic that they must have been born that way, but I was not. Kinda like I was a birth defect. The difference between them and me is they were all encouraged and praised all their lives. I wasn’t. it’s that simple. I never knew that made any difference at all until you pointed it out. I am in college taking every kind of art class you can think of and happier doing it then I have ever. Most importantly, I get better every day.
Fantastic. More power to you Amanda. It takes a lot to face down that self-deprecation and get up and try to do it anyway. You have my admiration and respect.
That was a joke right?
I much prefer the later it is so fine in its execution and I long to be able to capture in paint at that standard! I’m at about 2002 compared to the above and find it frustrating!! Here to find words of help which I am so far. Great blog | thank you!
If it wasn’t, it’s for sale…:)
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….
Phew!
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:-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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 🙂 😉 😀
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 🙂
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!
Doh! So much for being clever. Nice to meet you, Paul.
Shelley
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
This is such an interesting topic and I really enjoyed really this blog and discussion that has begun (despite Paul’s desire to not start one!).
I think people struggle with the word talent because it implies a sense of effortlessness and suggests the work comes easy to these people. When in fact, people that are traditionally regarded as highly talented have had to work their arse off to get where they are! I think that and a combination of having the creativity/imagination/urge to create, makes a great artist.
Of course, anyone can learn to create art by studying the techniques and acquiring skills, but I do think that some people it will come more naturally to – just like anything else in the world; maths, football, dancing.
And that doesn’t devalue the work that anyone else is making.
Thanks Eleanor.
I’d agree with you that it does seem to come more easily to some people. But I think that’s because they started much earlier, usually had some kind of advantage. Picasso, an artist teacher for a father. Mozart, the foremost music teacher of his time for a father.
I’m currently reading an interesting biography of Mucha by his son. He contends that his father was born with everything he needed to become a great artist. Then, almost in the same breath, describes how Mucha was left by his mother with a crayon on a string around his neck from before he could walk. So, of course, he drew.
Small things can make for very big differences when compounded by time. Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell is an interesting read in that regard.
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.
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.
Totally agree, my experience is that I went from not knowing any languages at 21 to now being able to speak close to fluent Mandarin and intermediate Italian, Thai, Lao and Hindi.
All because I practiced enough to learn these skills and it was the right kind of practice where I was talking to people, listening to what they had to say as well as learning all the vocabulary and grammar I felt I needed from my experience trying to communicate with people in the language.
Everyone who I’ve met, and I’ve started tutoring recently, learns at the same speed, just that some of them try more (the reasons I’ve come across are because they are more confident or they have a habit of learning already (experience if you like)).
For me it all depends on your surroundings, I could see myself being a completely different person and having a completely different personality in good and bad ways if I hadn’t grown up in the surroundings I have.
Completely agree, Max.
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.
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?
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…)
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.
Sorry let me try those links again 2004 painting
and 2010 painting
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.
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?)
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?
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
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.
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’.
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.
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!
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! 😉
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.
Thanks for contributing your thoughts Yvan.
By the way, is this you? Really nice drawings.
(see Tracey, I’m trying…)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hy Paul,
Yes, it’s my site
Thanks
Yvan
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
Great! Let me know what you think, drop me an email. I think there’s some really fascinating stuff in there.
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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…
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
>and you can stir your coffee with a skull swizzle stick!
Hehe! that would absolutely make my day 🙂
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Guess we’ll just have to differ on this Kasia 🙂
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.
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!
I know this article is old but I found it searching for some kind of “hope” I would say.
I used to believe that talent was everything, that either you had it or you didn’t and I lived my life being a slave of that concept. Even if I had aptitudes for the arts (music, drawing, writing) I never believed in myself and thought that as I didn’t have an overwhelming born-with talent, it wasn’t worth it following that path.
I remember how I used to love drawing as a child, and singing, and how I begged my parents for a piano, but I was never encouraged to follow the arts, but discouraged instead. My father had this idea that everything related to the arts was a waste of time and I’d be better of choosing a path that could give me money, like being a lawyer.
Nowadays I would say I didn’t achieve any, because I didn’t follow my dreams and other people’s expectations made me choose a path that wasn’t for me. Of course it’s my own fault because I made those choices, but I explain this because I agree with the part that having a supporting and nurturing environment it’s very important. Sometimes I dwell on how good a drawer or musician I would be today if I had followed my dreams.
Now, in my late thirties I was trying to find some kind of hope to see if I can ever improve my drawing skills or if this is all I can achieve because I don’t have the talent that others have. I have ideas for paintings in my head but not the ability to draw them and that frustrates me, and I wonder if one day I’ll be able to achieve that.
This article made me question my beliefs about talent, and despite thinking that some people have more aptitudes than others for certain things, I leave with the feeling that practice and determination can help us achieve our goals, and that, maybe, my drawing can improve if I keep at it.
Thanks for this article 🙂
It is not your fault that you were pushed into something you didn’t want to do. IN fact, I think that happens to far too many of us. It happened to me, too. Don’t blame yourself for that Maria.
You are still young. I know it might not seem it sometimes, but you are. You have plenty of time left to achieve what you want to, so concentrate on that. Each day is a blank sheet, new opportunity to for you to spend doing what you you always wanted – even if you can only do it for a little while each day, to begin with.
Please do two things for me:
1. Buy and read “Bounce” by Matthew Syed.
2. Start practising your drawing 🙂
Thank you very much for your words of encouragement Paul. I’ve noted down your book recommendation and will check Amazon :). About your second advice; I actually started back with my practice after reading some of your insightful articles 🙂 so thanks for that!
Excellent!
Remember, start small and build slowly. It’s the best way to keep your drawing habit going over the long term.
And good luck!
Although I am confident in my drawing and poetry talents. I am leaning towards a musical side of artistic talents and can write lyrics but my motivation towards expressing those lyrics can be really finicky due to my emotional connection to my creativity. I wonder what can help stabilize my motivation.
Hi Myles,
The best advice I can give you, honestly, is just to turn up every day and practice, whether you feel motivated or not. The main difference between people who make a lot of progress and those who don’t so much is that the people that make progress turn up and do the work whether they feel motivated or not.
There are ways to soften the blow though. Start small, but make sure you practice regularly, every day if possible. Start with just a few minutes and build from there.
I’d also recommend reading The War of Art by Steven Pressfield.
I hope that helps.
Today I was drawing, doing my daily practice and this sentence kept tugging at me. The sentence was “your not talented enough to do this”. This really got to me and just made me give up……until I found this. I want to thank you for giving me the inspiration to keep going. I’ve been drawing for a year now and have seen growth, but from time to time my low self esteem gets the best of me. I want you to know that you helped me get going again and for that I thank you.
Thank you so much Nick, that’s really wonderful to hear.
If you need further inspiration, I’d recommending reading “Bounce” by Matthew Syed. It’s as clear a case as it’s possible to make that talent is a myth.
Stick with it, draw as regularly as you can (every day if possible, little and often is more effective that doing a lot sporadically) and you will see real progress over time.
“The water makes a hole in the stone, not through violence, but through falling often” – Lucretius
Both inspiration and talent are real, however, it takes at least 10,000 hours to gain mastery of anything, including painting, and age is not a factor. Raphael, for example, became a Master at 17, Kandinsky at 40. It’s the Paintings that matter more than the Artist. ARS LONGA vita brevis
Excellent article! One thing I don’t like about the belief in “talent” is that it minimizes all the investment of time and work it takes for us to become “good” at something.
I see you published this in 2011; how are your orange and clementine paintings doing these days? 🙂
And, the article reminds me to get back to work!
Well, I haven’t painted an orange or a clementine for a little while – perhaps I should. But hook up with me on facebook and you’ll see the recent flower painting I’ve been busy with. Or subscribe to the blog, I’ll probably be putting them all into a blog post at some point soon 🙂
When i saw 2006 and then 2011 the first thing that came out of my mouth was wow, so much of growth in skills in 2011. Awesome work. A great inspiration
Thanks H 🙂
Wow a lot to think about here Paul – you have certainly unlocked a few things with all this. Nicely done too. As for the paintings and their subjects – one’s an orange, the other’s a clementine, so they’re different – like the paintings. Both great though.
This is truly an inspirational article. I, myself and told and taught that I couldn’t do what I wanted to because I wasn’t born with natural talent. This article helped me get back on track and try and achieve what I truly want to. Hard work and dedication is more important than anything in life. Thanks
Thanks Xavier, I”m really glad to hear it helped.
I love both paintings, but the latter one seems much more … detailed. You can actually feel the years of practice and the behind-the-scenes hard work. Thanks for this post 😉
I’ve read this article many, many times and I agree wholeheartedly with it. I’ve heard the whole “born with it” thing many, many times also, usually applied to musicians, and it drives me completely bonkers. I am reminded of an acquaintance who can sit down at a piano and play virtually anything by ear. Yes, that is indeed a good talent to have, but when she remarked to me that she “always just knew” how to do it, I very nearly had to stifle a laugh. I’m positive she didn’t roll out of bed one morning knowing how to play the piano by ear. Either someone taught her or she just fiddled around until she figured it out on her own, and that in itself implies that you can teach yourself a skill.
That whole attitude implies that there’s no way anyone else can acquire any kind of talent except if the talent gods suddenly decided to aim their spotlight on you, and if they don’t, you’re out of luck for all time. Nonsense!
I’m glad to see more and more posts and books debunking this myth because I think it has squelched far too many people’s ambitions to be the artists, photographers and musicians they would love to be.
Thank you, Paul, for this post. I have it bookmarked and I try to read it often to remind myself to get back to work. And work hard!
Thank you Liz. I absolutely agree that the talent myth is responsible for much doubt and uncertainty in peoples’ lives, and needs to be finally put to rest!
Unfortunately I don’t expect it to go away any time soon, though. We can just supply balance where we can 🙂
Hello Paul,
Thank you so much for your wonderful website. It was a great stroke of good luck for me finding such a rich source of learning and inspiration. Thank you.
I have come late to this discussion, but it’s such an interesting one. I also believe that it’s practice, mainly, but I think there must first be an interest to keep us working.,… If someone decided to religiously practice Golf, or Tennis, in spite of loathing every minute of it, their game would improve no doubt but the passion would not be there.
Art is pretty much solitary-Music, or Sport, or Dancing less so.
I remember a local Artist who is well known and very successful talking about how important it is to be able to work by yourself. He said “at Art School there were people who were much better at painting than I was, but they just found it hard to work on their own, and gradually they dropped out.”
I am sure the key to what people assume is talent, is mainly practice.. maybe with some natural tendencies to point someone in the right direction to start, but after that, mainly hours put in working.
Thank you again Paul for providing this amazing resource for those of us who are struggling along, I so wish I had had it many Years ago.
Absolutely June, enjoyment is a big part of it. We learn more quickly if we’re enjoying ourselves.
Thanks, I’m really glad you’re enjoying the blog 🙂
I don’t agree one bit. I’ve seen ‘naturals’ and I’ve been around lots of art students.
I believe this is an interesting perception on the debate, however I believe this argument, rather ignorantly, ignores another very crucial aspect of the equation. Genetics, predisposition, these are things that are ingrained in the body, the way it manifests. Talent is something that works in concert with the factors you review here, such as environment and the agency of individual motivation, however it would be truly daft for an individual, especially one who is taking a stance on a subject with the “objective” goal to dismantle a myth, can ignore the fact that there are people who can try and try again, and those who walk out the door with the ability to do things, without will, without determination, without effort or thought. So what is it that drives this ability? I believe it to be a confluence of things, some of which you mentioned, however, in the body, in the brain, and the network of synapses between these two when factored into genetic predisposition, is what allows talent to exist. Talent can be made, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that some people have gifts that do not have to be worked for.
To illustrate this I will pose the question:
What about the person who has an ability that they do not wish to have? Let’s say someone has an incredible ability to complete mathematical problems, however does not put in the work, doesn’t turn in assignments, and would rather be doing anything other than math problems. The issue of talent is that it is not always something that needs or is desired to be practiced.
While I do not claim to know everything on this matter, I will say from my own positionality here, that I would encourage any person taking on such a subject to take a more holistic, intersectional approach before posting thoughts like this that can be best described as a platform for a limited lens.
I wish to support all those with a vision to become whatever they wish to be. Artist, writer, composer, banker, sports star. We all can achieve great things with practice, to that point I agree with you, however I will not stand by the notion that some people are born without talent. Thank you.
Also, I just want to say I still think that the work and energy you have focused into your work and the desire to help others is excellent. I just wanted to express that there is a lot of possibilities that can arise within this context of talent, and very much feel inspired by the idea of working hard and taking responsibility for your creative pursuits.
Thanks Jack, I really appreciate that.
Thanks for contributing, Jack. I appreciate you taking the time to do so eloquently, and for supporting your thoughts with your reasoning. This is exactly the kind of debate I’d like to encourage.
Whilst it’s true that we need to remember that we certainly don’t know everything about the way our minds work, and about what our potentials are and how we can develop them, there is absolutely no evidence that talent, genetic predisposition or anything like it contributes to expertise. None of the research (and there has now been much done) in the field of developing expertise has found any correlation between genetics and expertise in any field.
There have, however, been many studies that have shown a direct correlation between effective methods of practice (coupled with motivation and a good dash of hard work of course) and expertise.
I’d like to direct you to the work of Anders Ericsson on this, who wrote the book – literately – on the development of skill and expertise. Much of his earlier work is very scientific in tone and perhaps not so easy to wade through, but he’s just published a book called Peak with author Robert pool, which is a very enjoyable read and presents the results of studies clearly.
Here’s a link to the book. If you can approach it with an open mind, I think you might be surprised:
http://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp/0544456238/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Greetings Paul. Your post has motivated me. I am 24 years of age and a versatile artist. I cleared studying graphic design last year from campus. Of late I have been feeling down despite the fact that I have been drawing a lot since y childhood. Everyone who sees my work mesmerizes at how I am talented. I truly now believe that without proper practice and passion that I had right from the start I wouldn’t have reached this far. I still have to practice even at this level to achieve my beyond limits. Thanks to you
Thanks Ezra, that’s really good to hear.
You have an excellent attitude that will take you far. I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been feeling down, the only way to deal with those times is to work through them I think – whilst being kind enough to yourself not to worry too much about the days you don’t manage it.
Practice won’t just improve your skills, it will develop your potential to improve. Mind boggling 🙂 Good luck my friend.
I really want this to be true.
I was actually an extremely precocious little brat and I took great interest in two things from about the age of 4 or 5: music and writing. Unfortunately, I cannot draw at all 🙂
There are times when I look back on very early works – find a poem I wrote at age 8 or see a video of myself playing piano at age 11 or play for myself again my first composition and I kick myself because I look back and think: Yes, it’s not a masterpiece, but it’s so good for your age. Imagine what would have happened if you had continued. But I really let my low confidence get in the way. I was extremely self critical and I continue to be. I quit music when I was 19 and recently took it back up ten years later. I never wanted to be a musician, I wanted to be a writer since about age 10. Technically, I’m now a writer. I write for charities and corporates and I am very good at my job, I get headhunted a lot, people often say I have a great aptitude for writing – which is nice, although like you say, it’s largely practice since I have enjoyed writing since age 5. But I feel I really fall behind on my creative work, which is what I really want to do. I feel that I have no real talent for it and I can find all kinds of evidence – although if I look for it I sometimes find evidence of the opposite and see some talent in there too.
The frustrating thing for me is that if I say to myself – write a piece of music – I can just do it. It might not be amazing but I can write a decent and serviceable piece of music in my head and work it out on a keyboard and then record it within a day. It feels like it comes naturally, I barely have to try. It’s nothing mindblowing but it feels natural. Yet I feel I can’t do this with my writing. With my writing it all feels like struggle and never natural. Yet I have never wanted to be a professional musician or composer – I love playing and writing but I don’t have the motivation to make something of it, my interest is lacking. It’s always been stories that I was most captured by and most inspired by and that has been the one thing I have really always aspired to create. So it’s frustrating that it feels like my talents lie in the wrong area.
I hope it’s just that I’m psyching myself out. Other people say good things about my creative writing and I was even talent spotted by a broadcaster about five years ago but I’ve really done nothing with it. I have only ever written a couple of small pieces I have any pride in, everything else was just not good enough for me. True, better than the average person, but nothing compared to my aspirations.
I hope that if I can just stay calm and try to write naturally rather than forcing it I will learn and I will start to enjoy writing again. It’s just really difficult to feel like I will never be who I wanted to be.
I wish it was as simple as reading and believing. I’ve been drawing and painting for my entire life (I’m in my 40s now). However, lately I haven’t improved at all. In fact, I think I’m actually getting worse. It’s almost at the point that some days I wonder if I should give up. I don’t want to, but if I can’t improve, I don’t find enjoyment. Is it possible that for some people there’s a limit?
I think that some things come a bit easier or naturally for some people …but the real work is in developing that and honing it… Eg. both my husband and I taught ourselves to play guitar . I have a good musical memory and so remembering musical phrases came easily to me but, as a result, when something didnt come as easily, I would get frustrated and quit… whereas he just kept plugging along . The final result is that he is a much better musician than I am because he was willing to put in the hard work .
So , while I dont really believe in talent, I believe that some people have an aptitude for certain things …but that will only take you so far . Its the work put in that makes the difference. Work put in trumps ” talent” every time .
I agree with most everything said here except the part about natural talent. I do believe in natural talent. I think it is not the only way to achieve proficiency, and certainly not how most people achieve it, but I believe there are a few out there that just have an innate ability in this or that. Possibly the reason why so many people disagree that natural talent in any specific area exists is that it’s hard to believe in something you’ve not experience yourself, at least in the particular area in question. I do not believe that a natural talent will automatically mean someone is the best in something if they never actually put it to use. But I think that there is the rare person that really can just sit down and compose a fantastic musical piece even though they just learned how to read music a short time before. Consider that Mozart was already composing at the age of 5 and touring professionally by the age of 6. Would one really believe that it was due to hard work and motivation, given that he was just learning to feed and dress himself a couple years before that?
i naturally come to conclusion with my experiences that “talent” does not exist. i argues with 10s of other and did a google search and found your article. i am happy that i am not alone!
Paul, I love the later orange artwork, although, in the first artwork, the orange color is complimented with a bit of blue background, makes the painting more vibrant, I guess that’s why it is so attractive. But, hands down I love the 2011 version. You are an inspiration for people like me who are constantly struggling with themselves in terms of motivation, will, confidence and everything else which can bog down an artist-to-be. The only thing that shows me light in this dark tunnel of my long journey is the flickering faith that I have it in me and of course, by reading up your blogs! Thanks so much for reaching out to us!
Thank you Nora! You absolutely have it in you, we all do. The only way – or t least the most effective way – that I know to bring it out is just to put some time aside every day and do a little practice. It’s amazing how it builds up over time.
Love your post!
Life is only full of the limitations you set for yourself.
And both oranges are beautiful.
Thanks for being you <3
“Life is only full of the limitations you set for yourself.”
Thanks Jessica, I completely agree!
hello … I was not born with ability to draw . but it happened that I was looking to everything very carefully, and this way of very detailed observation started, I guess, when I was born .
I like very much your work and poetry
Thnks Isabelle 🙂
Wow this post has survived all the way from 2011 which I have just read from accidentally finding after watching Michael Jackson on YouTube. My theory is that everyone is an individual with unique characteristics. could be the voice or the body shape or the movement or the perception of something. Talent is a word created to mean a particular aspect of someone fits in with how humans percieve something as great. For example some voice tones sound amazing to the ear than others (I could never sing like celine )or someone has a longer stride while running than someone else. When this is picked up then comes the motivation and practice to fine tune it so I reckon it is the luck of having something the world perceives as good and doing the hard work and perhaps having the right appearance to get the public recognition to be called famous and talented. That’s why I don’t think we could be Michael Jackson even if we practised as a child like him. We just don’t have his look and movement or unique way. That’s so called talent but like the word love I feel it’s a word that’s exaggerated into a god like magical gift.
Which it is.
Like you I will continue to practice and be great… perhaps with my unique style I’ll find something that fits what the world sees as talent. I’m sure we all could with something,
Michael Jackson or Picasso may not have been seen as talented 100s of years ago if that was not mankind was liking back then just as Elvis may be a nobody if he was of this era. Perhaps if more people took up running usain bolt wouldn’t be the fastest man on earth.
Very interesting…Does talent exist? When I was a child I loved drawing and painting, the teenager came along and I stopped. Now in my 40’s, after having insatiable urges to draw I bought pencils, colouring pencils, charcoal, paint and paper. I found my long lost creative side again and seriously can’t get enough! I get positive feedback about my art but I’ve had no formal training at all. What I do know is that I my ability to create art comes from within me. The urge to improve my ability to create art also comes from within me.
I believe that your Picasso’s and Monet’s have that ‘something else’ that makes them ‘gifted’ ‘talented’ ‘geniuses’. I’m so far away from being any of these gifted artists it’s not funny, however, I do believe that everyone has that ‘something else’. That ‘something else’ is different in everyone and that ‘something else’ is often sadly lost or like your Picasso’s and Monet’s, nurtured into something beautiful…..
Thanks Abbey, that’s an interesting perspective.
Whether the seeds fall on barren or fertile ground makes an enormous difference, for sure.
HI Paul,
you claim you’re mostly a self-taught artist. I do so much researching the past 7 years on stuff, like tutorials about half tones, and reflected light, aerial perspective, …….more critical stuff like Halation and Illusory Conjunction…
When you paint, do you think to yourself, wait………..i need to consider these things…….even though you might not really be aware of seeing them in the actual scene you’re painting?
Like adding distance with cool color….even if it’s not being seen.
I know these things are very usful, but it’s hard to keep all of them in mind without actually witnessing them. So much to “remember”.
Some years ago I did a painting of some grapes and two persimmons sitting on a cloth on a ledge.It was an early effort . After about 5 years of painting, I looked at it with fresh eyes and saw many defects. I decided I would do a second version The second painting was more polished. The grapes had more volume. All of my color choices were better. It was altogether a better painting than the earlier one. So I was surprised when not everyone agreed ! There were all sorts of comments mostly along the lines of ” Well, the first one looks more spontaneous.” ” I like the primitive quality in the early painting” etc.
I questioned my own perceptions and standards. My new grapes looked like real GRAPES!
The old ones looked flat and pale. I still prefer the later work. I believe it really is a better painting.
But here is something I do know can happen I have done paintings that I took too far. By that I mean they were better at an earlier stage than the final one. Sometimes I get too exact and it just takes the life out of the painting. ( this happens most often when I am using a photo as a reference !) And I can’t go back. I can’t recapture the simplicity of the earlier stage.
May I say one other thing on the subject of talent?
I think it is a terrible concept.
When someone produces good work, saying that it a result of “talent” robs the artist of credit for hard work! As if you are saying, ” I could be just as good if I had HIS talent !”
And, if you are struggling ( as all good artists do ) and you become discouraged ( as all artists do ! ) you might give in to the temptation to quit, citing your lack of “talent”. It is a cop out!
An excuse for laziness or lack of confidence. The truth is, if you practice and seek out good teachers, you will improve.
And there is no end to improving. Growing as an artist of any kind never has a final moment. There is always farther to go. That’s what makes being creative so rewarding !
Whew!
Anyway, thanks for this site !
Agreed on all points Gerald!
Thank you Paul for this post. I found it refreshing and inspirational. I hope your blog is still active. It’s 2017 now and I started my journey only a year ago. I’m almost 50 and feel better than I ever have. I just keep drawing now. Whatever, a line, a dot, a circle, and on and on until it looks like something. I watch tutorials on youtube and read blogs like yours and feel myself growing and improving.
I have only read this post on your blog and came across it looking for inspiration, tutorials and stuff to read about art on the internet. I will go over your site and read more.
Thank you,
Lara
Oh wow, I read down the comments and see your blog is still quite active! Nice, love it will continue to visit and keep reading 🙂
Yes still going strong 🙂 I usually try to add new posts once a week or so 🙂
Hi Paul! I usually don’t commentonblogs, but I couldn’t help myself when I saw the reactions to the 2006 work vs the 2011 one.
The fact is that the 2006 one looks better because the lighting is different, since it has some bounced light , but the core of the matter is not shown through the orange, but the cup.
In the 2011 work you show a higher degree of control, I can tell by the leaves and the palette you chose, while in 2006 you had trouble with the cup, in which the shadows are too dark in the blue sections compared to the white ones.
Is the 2006 painting better? No, but it has a slightly “better” 3 point light scheme. The 2011 one shows more skill.
This is a very interesting point of view, however it’s not new! This argument does boil down to Nature vs Nurture. There are many cases of people that are born with exceptional abilities and demonstrate them at very early ages. I can attest to witnessing an uneducated woman adding long rows of numbers without making one single mistake. %100 Accuracy. Every Single Time. She was able to do this since she was a very young child at the tender age of 4 and 5. She can’t do much of anything else because she dropped out of school before graduating HS. She’s a Book Keeper, working of the Books. She’s a walking human calculator just the same. It was explained to me as eidetic memory or photographic memory. This is just one of many rare cognitive abilities demonstrated by people that do unusually exceptional things at a very early age that most of us normal people simply do not. Without any other understanding of these amazing abilities we have described them as “Genius”, “Talent”, “Prodigy” and “Gifts”! Advances in modern Cognitive Brain Science, we now have a better understanding and scientists have categorized these abilities based on what they understand about the Human Brain. Now, we have a new word to learn about these strange abilities: “Synesthesia” or Synesthetes” ! You may not appreciate the existence of people with these misunderstood abilities, but they do exist regardless of your inability to accept them just the same. What other explanation would you have for the existence of these people if it weren’t for the fact that they exhibit these amazing abilities at such a very young age. This is Nature. Not Nurture. Anyone with normal intelligence can eventually advance themselves by conventional education means. That is Nurture. But we both know that the advancement will take them longer. Why is that? Why would we see a child of 6, 7, 8 , 9 or 10 doing college lever work and graduating college by the age of 12 – 14, six years or better, ahead of their peers? This is Nature Gifting them abilities far beyond the norm!
In psychology research literature, the term child prodigy is defined as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer
Interesting that you mention science so often without having any scientific evidence to present. Why do these arguments always, always come down to unsupported anecdotal evidence? Please point me to a peer reviewed scientific paper that proves the existence of these people beyond doubt and I will be convinced. I won’t hold my breath.
I wholeheartedly agree with your points. Talent is such a lazy way of complimenting one that have exposed to environments of – hard work and dedication.
A lot have argued that genetics, being born with long legs thus running faster than the norms would is extremely weak. I don’t believe that that is what you call talent, but rather something else.
Physically, yes, changes in body structure might vary thus resulting on better succession on sports. In Art, however, it boils down to: Exposure, environment, the way / teaching that suits One best and motivation. It annoys me that most would simply refer to artists as ‘talented’, not minding the dedication,- blood and sweat that have put into sharpening their skills.
Talent does not mean anything. I’m glad that I’m not the only one on-board with this topic.