Art problems

[SSSFan]

well, talent is no talent when you're not born with it. so I guess there is no such thing as talent. aah whatever. what am I moaning about anyway?
I guess we all have our own opinion about this.shoot, now I start to sound like the_importer. I must stop that! ::gives himself some slaps:: whew, I snapped out of it.
But when you wanna draw, you should do it! you'll indeed get better in it. Just don't compare yourself with someone who can make a drawing in a few minutes.

[drumlord]

The literal definition of talent does indeed mean that somebody is born with an "innate" or "natural" ability to do something. But if we truly qualify that as talent, then the only talents anybody is truly born with are the ability to pee and poop. And we're all quite good at that, so nobody would really say that somebody born with those abilities is "talented"

Thing is, the real truth is that different people are good at learning different things. Nobody is born with talent, which yes makes the dictionary definition a literal impossibility. For instance, I like to consider myself a talented web developer. I pick up and learn things fairly quickly and I can get the job done fast and well. But was a born with the ability to make websites? Not by a long shot. "Talent" is a myth, so we may as well use the word in a more appropriate way, no?

[localflick]

Talent aside, you don't need to be rich for the short film. The guy I know used crappy equipment until he got to college where they have industry standard cameras, DV decks, software, and everything else you need to create professional stuff... though the tuition costs that $20,000 you were talking about.

[SSSFan]

'the ability of making websites' is something you just CAN'T have talent for, in my opinion, but there are others things you CAN have talent for.
Like in playing a particular instrument or in playing a particular sport. Drawing is one of the things you CAN have talent for.
Well at least, that's what I thought..but by hearing you all saying that the definition of 'talent' doesn't exist, I'm starting to think so too.
But it IS true that some people are better in drawing then others, no matter how hard you try to be better then those people, isn't it?

[Kizyr]

'the ability of making websites' is something you just CAN'T have talent for, in my opinion, but there are others things you CAN have talent for.

Definitely disagree there... Designing websites from a technical point-of-view is nothing; it's just learning how to program. Designing them from an aesthetic point of view is about as artistic as interior design. It has to have a certain purpose and functionality, while looking pleasing to the eye and well-organized.

In the earlier days of the internet, around 1994-1998 or so, there was a gap between those who had the aesthetic abilities and those who had technical ones. So, all the best stuff you'd find on h4x0r websites with really god-awful designs, while corporate websites looked very pleasing to the eye but had no useful content. Now, a talented web designer will have to have a portfolio, much like an artist being contracted to design commercial art.

I still believe that any 'talent' can be developed, if you have a certain goal in mind. But, it's still no good to pursue those talents at the exclusion of others you might be better suited for.

Besides it took me years to even get where I am at today. Yeah, I can do different kinds of art, but it still takes a lot of time to come up with an idea. I screw up numerous times and end up redoing it three or four times.

That's all part of the process, I say. Anything I write these days goes through multiple drafts--all my thesis papers (between 25 and 50 pages) went through at least four full head-to-toe revisions, if not more. If I'm doing any calligraphy, there'll be at least 20-30 trashed papers while I practice at the strokes (you remember the scene in Hero where the school is practicing the strokes in the sand? Same idea).

Revisions are as much a part of creating good art as the final product, if not more so. A good work of art, you can tell was put together with intent, perhaps even having to edit a few times, but not completely random. KF

[drumlord]

As I said, people aren't just built to be better at something though they have a natural aptitude for learning to do something. Your argument about web development not being a talent doesn't work. Why is being able to play a violin any more natural than being able to create a website? Both require a great deal of talent and creativity. Both involve doing something the body was not explicitly created to do.

Plus, when it comes down to it, if I took every single baby born into this world and gave them a violent or a pen and paper, you would get no great works from them. If I waited until they were 10 or 20 or 30, you'd get the exact same result. The ability to learn something varies from person to person and is based a little on genetics, but largely on how one is raised, discipline, and many other factors. The ability to do something that might make an onlooker say "Oh, how talented!" is solely based on your physical ability to do so, of which most humans are on relatively equal levels. I have roughly the same innate ability to play violin or draw a pretty picture as every person that has ever lived.

[localflick]

Coming from the perspective of a Web Designer,
I'm with Kiz on this one. School can teach you aesthetics, but without experience applying the theory you learn, it won't get you far. You need to practice everything.

It's not easy to make a good website. You need excellent graphic design skills to make it pleasing to the eye, but what about the functionality? A good website should be participant centered, adaptive, dynamic (when necessary), responsive, and engaging.

This site for example:
has a nice design,
it's very participant centered because it's you own unique experience,
it adapts to you with your text color choice, log-in and avatar,
the images load dynamicly which helps,
it responds to you telling you that you've submitted your post, and in e-mails,
and the content people write make it engaging.

Sites don't just build themselves. There's so much behind the navigation, setting up an informational hierarchy to organize the information to easily find anything... the color choices, compressing the images so they load quickly, and look pretty... argh. I'm just glad Kizyr found the post before me, I could wear myself out with this rant.

My own website needs a lot of work. I'm working on it in another place, and will soon update the domain name. Until then, http://www.flickswebdesign.com

I'm spent.

[SSSFan]

Your argument about web development not being a talent doesn't work

Well, now I think: 'where was I when I said that' because you're right, it's rubbish.
damn, why didn't I saw this before? you're right. you all are right. All this wasted time on saying you were not right..*sigh*(well, not really 'wasted' time. I mean, I'm a lostest boy now, WOOHOO )
I think I needed some time to let it penetrate through me.
I just had a 'hey, I get it'-sign through my head. I guess I'm a little slowly of notion

[drumlord]

That's an epiphany.

And how is that wasted time? You disagreed with something, a few people explained their thoughts on it. You may have learned something and adjusted your thoughts accordingly (and not necessarily to be the same as any of us). That's a miracle on the internet Most of time disagreements degenerate into crap

[SSSFan]

yeah you're right, again...ha, now I see what internet's all good for

but, what's an epiphany?

[Kizyr]

but, what's an epiphany?

An Epiphany is a sudden awakening to the essential nature or meaning of things.

The day you realized babies aren't delivered by storks,
that was an Epiphany.

The day you realized men and women aren't the same,
that was an Epiphany.

The day you realize that your Web site is your business and your software can't handle the traffic,
that is an Epiphany.

That's from an old IBM commercial with Avery Brooks (played Captain Sisko on DS9). One of my favourites, too. KF

[Alunissage]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=epiphany

Definition 3(b) is what's being used in this context.

[SSSFan]

cool. I never knew that Must remember that word

[Alunissage]

It's also the name of an accessory in Growlanser II that increases attack strength to 150% but does 10% of that damage to the attacker as well. Why that word was used I'll never know.

Regarding the talent thing, I think it's somewhere between the two extremes. I remember my conducting teacher saying something like "Your daughter might be Sarah Chang [young famous violinis] but you have to get her lessons and training and practice, or you won't have Sarah Chang." I think we're certainly born with various aptitudes, but if they're never addressed then no one will know the difference...and there may be other factors involved. I was reading music at age 4 and absorbed theory effortlessly, but didn't have the eye/hand coordination to be much of an instrumentalist (maybe I should've tried trombone...) and didn't have the mental focus to practice sufficiently. Years of lessons and gradually better practicing habits helped, but nothing could really eradicate the coordination problem. Musically, my goal came to be just to be as good as I personally could be, even though that would never be at a professional level.

About comparing yourselves, it's both insidiously detrimental and almost inevitable. I never thought of myself as being any good at art, and it wasn't until I worked at a preschool in which the teachers made a big point of not "modelling" for kids that I understood why. I saw a teacher draw a star or somesuch for a kid, the kid trying to do the same thing, and getting frustrated and tearful because of course it didn't work as well. And the thing is, all through my childhood I'd been doing various creative projects with Mom, and of course she was much better than I, and I thought something was wrong with me because I couldn't do as well. I don't blame Mom, but I think that was a definite inhibition. In retrospect, I might have done better to study art instead of music, and I'd really love to be taking classes now...I'm somewhat teaching myself, but there's only so far I can go with that. I too would like to get some of the pictures in my head out, although some of them I don't think will ever be realized.

[phyco126]

Ohhh, I want to see that commercial Kiz! I love the guy who plays Sisko from DS9 XD XD XD XD XD XD XD

*ahem*

I believe that some people are born with talent and I also believe that people can develope talent. Then again, that's just me

[Sonic#]

The literal definition of talent does indeed mean that somebody is born with an "innate" or "natural" ability to do something. But if we truly qualify that as talent, then the only talents anybody is truly born with are the ability to pee and poop. And we're all quite good at that, so nobody would really say that somebody born with those abilities is "talented"

I don't think classifying 'natural' as being at the point you're born is valid. We are neither physically or mentally developed enough to have anything real, hence the 'pee' and 'poop'.

A more proper definition of when an 'innate' talent manifests would be when various aspects of our physical and mental forms develop. An example would be Alunissage's learning to read music at 4, or a child learning to read at a slightly earlier age, or my brother intuitively grasping the rules of Algebra at the age of 8.

Up until adulthood (and even, arguably, after), we're growing into ourselves, further developing. Physically we grow taller and develop certain characteristics. Mentally, the structure of our mind is forming, hormones are changing, and everything else is going on.

I think you're right, to the extent that there isn't a gene in us that says 'Piano' or 'Gymnast'. Rather, it's the combination of a host of values that make us more adaptable to certain tasks, making it seem intuitive, and therefore, a talent. Whether it manifests depends on the environment.

I notice things often in music. I'm pretty good at catching rhythms, and can pick up dancing fairly fast. I can even imagine music, embellish a theme, make stuff up, to the tone of a piano or whatever other instruments I want. I don't know whether other people do this or not; if they do, forgive me. ^^;; But I haven't ever learned how to read music and accurately write stuff down.

In my mamaw and papaw's house, we had a piano and I used to play it. I was fascinated by the lower notes. I even mastered the theme of Jaws, and very basic songs that can be played on C or G. But I received no guidance for my eagerness.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that I had some of the 'markings' of a good pianist, but that I never developed it further. It was a fruitless talent.

[localflick]

I think it's kind of interesting how this turned into a nature vs. nurture discussion.

As in everything we can do you start at some point on a spectrum of ability. Some people are good at percieving things and drawing realisticly is natural to them. Some people have trouble drawing naturally. No matter where you are ability-wise, with practice and hard work can progress along to where you want to be.

[Alunissage]

You can work toward there...but no guarantee you'll get there. You can move along that path as far as you personally can go, but that may be short of the destination you actually wanted. Determination and practice can only go so far past real limitations. I mean, even if I'd been practicing ballet constantly for years I wouldn't be able to dance en pointe because my foot is the wrong shape.

[localflick]

Very true. You're never where you want to be. I guess the spectrum moves with you. It's not like you get to a point and say, "well, I can draw a cat (or wahtever goal you have) just the way I want. Time to quit." I hang around with a lot of musicians, and it's funny to hear them talk about what they'll be able to play in a year, two years, etc... If you're passionate and dedicated to what you want to do, you should improve with time.