Born with aristic skill, or learn it?

[Dessi]

I knew a girl in college who could pen these really amazing and surreal scenes, and I remember she commented that everyone in her family has that same talent. For me, I've never had that talent, pretty much incapable of even painting by numbers even if I tried. I don't even have particularly nice handwriting. I'm not sure if I could spend a lifetime drawing things and even have half the skill as my friend who could draw just because she could.

So it got me thinking, is art a skill that can be learned and mastered by anyone, or do just have to be born with it?

[Piscivore]

I don't think that people are so much "born with it", as they are born with perhaps a couple or few key behavioural characteristics- being able to sit quietly for a certain time, the inclanation to concentrate on what is in front of them without distraction, interest in visual information like form, colour, and shape, etc- and these get channeled into skills that others in the family or immediate environment participate in and demonstrate enjoyment of.

But absent this, I think with enough hard work and dedication anyone can learn it, it just won't come as easy and they probably won't ever intrisically love it like the former.

For example, my daughter learned to read at an early age like I did, but a lot of that had to do with the fact that I read to her since her infancy. My son didn't learn to read so easily, perhaps because the girl had already heard most of the stories already and we'd taken to singing at night instead. Also, he was more interested in shapes and colours than words at that age. He didn't like to read until pretty much this year, but it is something he learned; while he enjoys it now, he still doesn't read for fun like the girl and I do.

[Professor Yaffle]

As with the majority of skills in life, a bit of both.

[Monketey Ghost]

Both.

I have known great musicians who couldn't read a note and only played by ear. They never went to "school" to pick up their technique.

I have known technically gifted people who played boring stuff. Great school-skills, not much artistry.

One helps the other.

[sadhatter]

I used to think "Born with it" but recently , i have been giving it my damndest, and while i am not all that good ( keep in mind, i actually have a pretty bad reduction on some kind of motor skills, pencil weilding being one of them. For issues that are too complex to go into, lol. ), i am finding that knowledge of art, is allowing me to rapidly progress, and interest is the only thing that is limiting me from becoming good.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm hoping both. I'm learning how to write and I don't see why I can't learn the skills. It's a matter of insight and I'm getting that from books and other people. But clearly some people have a knack without having to actively learn and I'm pretty sure I'll never be as good as someone like that.

[Mike!]

My Father was an Architect and I've been drawing for as long as I can remember. And for as long as I can remember, people said, "That kid sure can draw!". When I was in second grade I was making the artwork for the schools bulletin board. Not my class, the whole school. You'd think, in a school that went to sixth grade, there'd be somebody better than me in second grade, but I guess there wasn't. By the time I was a Senior in High School, I had an art scholarship, which I promptly turned down. I wasn't fond of school and had had enough as far as I was concerned then.

[alfaniner]

Talent is innate. Skill is acquired.

A person with one can approach the level of a person with the other. But if one has both, amazing things can happen.

[Draca]

I think artistic ability is mostly innate. Although training will help everyone of course.

Math is the same. Math ability is innate and those not born with it can struggle to learn it, but it comes easy to those with innate math ability.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Talent is innate. Skill is acquired.

A person with one can approach the level of a person with the other. But if one has both, amazing things can happen.

Well said.

[coalesce]

The danger is if you compare your own artistic endeavors to someone who's fairly proficient is to think that you can't do it. Keep in mind the other person has had a whole lot more practice--usually years or decades worth--and if you want a fair comparison, compare your work after six months against that person's work after only six months of drawing/painting.

Speaking personally, I was equally interested in music and art when I was in high school. Ultimately, I chose art because it seemed like less work, even though it was the same time-wise as music. Art just seemed...I don't know, easier. Sometimes, I wish it were the other way around.

Michael

[Bikewer]

I have always loved "drawing" and artistic foolin' around. Even as a tiny kid in elementary school I hated the big, thick "kid" crayons because you couldn't draw precise lines with them.
As an adult I decided to get involved more seriously and began to agressively explore painting and small-scale sculpture. I thought I produced some decent pieces.... However I realized that I was not going to enter the heady world of "artists"....

In my case, I could see that I obviously had some degree of innate talent; I understood perspective and proportion and color harmony and color mixing with very little instruction.
On the other hand, training and practice certainly improved my techniques!

We have a very similar discussion on this subject going on at one of the guitar forums I'm on. "Talent or hard work" I point out that in any field of endeavor, the very highest levels will likely be attained with a combination of both.
Without a degree of innate talent or ability, you will not achieve the heights. More than a few on the forum ascribe to the "hard work and dedication will achieve anything." viewpoint.

I maintain this is not the case. Take athletic endeavor. Only the tiniest 1% of the "cream" can achieve say, world's records in Olympic competition or win Le Tour or whatever. They must combine this talent with hard work, of course, often an extreme amount. But only those with the physiology will be the champions.
With artistic endeavor, it's a bit different, of course. It's not a case of going the fstest or jumping the highest. In fact, one might well argue just what it is that gives a "great" artist his particular insights and choice of subject matter.

[Quad4_72]

A very good question. I think the truly great artists are born with the talent, just as athletes are born with the talent. For example, my talent was in track. My fastest time in the 800m was 1:49. The overwhelming majority of people in my same age bracket (Or any age bracket for that matter) could not run that fast no matter how much they trained and no matter how hard they tried. My buddies used to get angry because they trained much more then I did, applied themselves much more, and had a very genuine interest in track. It was their life. Then I would apply myself very minimally and achieve much greater results. I absolutely hated track, but I did it simply for the scholarship, nothing more. Who knows where I could have gone with hard work and dedication.

Now, I am not trying to toot my own horn, but it is just a good example. No matter how hard I wanted to, there is no way I could be talented or great in any sort of art. I tried to be both a musician and an artist when I was younger, but I was absolutely atrocious. I apparently have very few creative bones in my body. Then on the flipside, my two brothers are very talented artists, but not nearly as good at athletics.

So moral of the story, I truly believe that it is something you are born with. Am I far off base with that?

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I have always loved "drawing" and artistic foolin' around. Even as a tiny kid in elementary school I hated the big, thick "kid" crayons because you couldn't draw precise lines with them.
As an adult I decided to get involved more seriously and began to agressively explore painting and small-scale sculpture. I thought I produced some decent pieces.... However I realized that I was not going to enter the heady world of "artists"....

In my case, I could see that I obviously had some degree of innate talent; I understood perspective and proportion and color harmony and color mixing with very little instruction.
On the other hand, training and practice certainly improved my techniques!

We have a very similar discussion on this subject going on at one of the guitar forums I'm on. "Talent or hard work" I point out that in any field of endeavor, the very highest levels will likely be attained with a combination of both.
Without a degree of innate talent or ability, you will not achieve the heights. More than a few on the forum ascribe to the "hard work and dedication will achieve anything." viewpoint.

I maintain this is not the case. Take athletic endeavor. Only the tiniest 1% of the "cream" can achieve say, world's records in Olympic competition or win Le Tour or whatever. They must combine this talent with hard work, of course, often an extreme amount. But only those with the physiology will be the champions.
With artistic endeavor, it's a bit different, of course. It's not a case of going the fstest or jumping the highest. In fact, one might well argue just what it is that gives a "great" artist his particular insights and choice of subject matter.

Looks like we posted about the same thing at the same time.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Talent is innate. Skill is acquired.

A person with one can approach the level of a person with the other. But if one has both, amazing things can happen.

That sums it up re: my opinion as well.

[baron]

10,000 hours will get you to world-class level in most things, so they say. In general terms I'd tend to agree but I'd also add that there seems to be a small percentage of people who do not improve no matter how much they practice. This could have something to do with faulty learning methods, or taking on bad methodology, but I suspect the answer lies with something more innate.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

As with the majority of skills in life, a bit of both.

I think the intended question from the OP, if I may be so bold, is about artistic talent more than skill. And when it comes to that, it seems to me to be a lot more nature than nurture.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

A comparison between my cousin and myself is a bit interesting. I had "talent" growing up, but in a restricted way. I would sit down and sketch from a reference for hours at a time. Drawing a line, erasing, drawing more, erasing some, until it was perfect. But if you asked me to draw a straight line, I couldn't do it to save my soul . My cousin, on the other hand, could just draw freely from imagination.

I don't draw much any more, because who wants to go through the effort ? I gave away or threw away most of my things. I think I still have an anime version of Harry Potter?

[baron]

Originally Posted by hgc

I think the intended question from the OP, if I may be so bold, is about artistic talent more than skill. And when it comes to that, it seems to me to be a lot more nature than nurture.

I don't know a single successful artist who hasn't worked like a maniac for many years to achieve their goal, nor one who was any good when they started. And I know a great many.

[pipelineaudio]

I've never seen a musician who seriously wanted it, not gain talent. Not a single one ever.

If seen likely more than 100 "child prodigies/born with it" types who, though they seemed far ahead early on, if they didn't REALLY want it, soon dissapear from the rear view mirrors of those who did

On the other hand, there certainly are differences in physiology. In my sport of freestyle BMX, my short legs + long torso, meant that a lot of tricks were extremely difficult to do, and things like dirt jumping were hard to step out of. But for the things I actually did, I feel I am about exactly as good as I should be for the amount of time I ride

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by hgc

I think the intended question from the OP, if I may be so bold, is about artistic talent more than skill. And when it comes to that, it seems to me to be a lot more nature than nurture.

Artistic talent is simply skill one more easily acquired.

A person with the unique skills to create a picture on a canvas or paint a scene with words is an artist. But there are things one can see analyzing the art allowing one to acquire the skill to be a good painter or writer.

[Halfcentaur]

I've been unusually talented at drawing since I could first hold a crayon. Talent is a factor, but many people can also learn to draw.

But no matter how talented you are, you still need to build a basic vocabulary with your knowledge and technique, or you're left making it up as you go along. Drawing is basically a game of observations and recognizing connections between forms. It is a series of hundreds and thousands of logical steps you memorize and learn to see the world with.

I have been amazed with the progress I've seen people with otherwise no discernible talent demonstrated make in drawing and painting through instruction and study.
I think it takes a certain way of looking at things, and you can learn to look at things this way. Some people are more conducive to this way of looking at things than others.

[RandFan]

Genetic predisposition. Genetic variation. If you are born less than 6 feet tall you are not likely to become an NBA champion. But if you are born with the height and ability you will still have to learn and practice damn hard.

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by baron

10,000 hours will get you to world-class level in most things, so they say. In general terms I'd tend to agree but I'd also add that there seems to be a small percentage of people who do not improve no matter how much they practice. This could have something to do with faulty learning methods, or taking on bad methodology, but I suspect the answer lies with something more innate.

I could practice for 100,000 hours and I will never be able to sing. Much as I love music, I have absolutely zero ability, a very restricted vocal range, and I border on tone-deaf.

Contrast that with my wife...with a good ear for music, a wide vocal range, a superb singing voice, and a talent for mimicry. (She sang La Isla Bonita at a charity talent show and had I not heard her practicing, I would have sworn she was lip-syncing to Madonna's vocals.)

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dessi

I knew a girl in college who could pen these really amazing and surreal scenes, and I remember she commented that everyone in her family has that same talent. For me, I've never had that talent, pretty much incapable of even painting by numbers even if I tried. I don't even have particularly nice handwriting. I'm not sure if I could spend a lifetime drawing things and even have half the skill as my friend who could draw just because she could.

So it got me thinking, is art a skill that can be learned and mastered by anyone, or do just have to be born with it?

Mozart. Think about it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by baron

10,000 hours will get you to world-class level in most things, so they say.

Unless you suck at it, anyway. You need both talent and learning.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Dessi

So it got me thinking, is art a skill that can be learned and mastered by anyone, or do just have to be born with it?

A bit of both.

[Itztli]

Originally Posted by baron

10,000 hours will get you to world-class level in most things, so they say.

But the people willing to invest 10,000 hours into something usually have a talent to start with.

[Elvis666]

I was a music major in college and went in thinking I was pretty good, but there I was exposed to people who were both willing to practice and talented. All the practicing I've done in my lifetime, still do 30 minutes to an hour a day and totalling way more than 10,000 hours, and I still don't have the ability to play like a gifted musician. I have the skill, just not the talent.

I realized this for certain when I began programming. In no time at all, I could code anything I could imagine, without the need for any written notes or flowcharts. My talent was in writing code, not making music.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by Elvis666

I realized this for certain when I began programming. In no time at all, I could code anything I could imagine, without the need for any written notes or flowcharts. My talent was in writing code, not making music.

Not sure about your experience, but I'm only good at programming because I started when I was 14. Was absolutely lousy when I first started, but having a knack for foregoing sleep, friendships, and sunlight, and a mere 10+ years later I've become pretty damn good at my job. I don't know whether that parallels to art or music.

For whatever anecdotes are worth, a buddy and I tried to learn the guitar together at roughly the same time, with no prior musical experience whatsoever. I've had my guitar for 6 years and never learned to play, because there's no instant gratification like there is with programming. My friend, on the other hand, paid for classes, and went from zero to awesome in about a year. To this day, I have no idea if I could ever play the guitar, or if I could never learn even if I tried.

[Checkmite]

I don't believe in giftedness or "natural ability" when it comes to unnatural things like specific sports, musical instruments, or art. I do believe that we develop inclinations at a young age that lead us to "learn how to learn" things we enjoy easier and faster.

I've been told I'm good at drawing; but it wasn't any kind of "natural talent". I drew occasionally until around the first grade, and while drawing pictures in school I noticed another kid who was better than me at it. That made me jealous, and I decided to draw and keep drawing until I was better than him at it. Of course I never saw him again after that year of school, but I drew good enough by that point that people noticed and praised me for it, so I enjoyed it and did it more, and that's how it went.

[Dogdoctor]

I learned to draw because of an incident that occurred in third grade. The teacher wanted to do a pictorial scroll kind of thing for the three billy goats gruff and she took auditions for who would be the artist. Now I fancied myself an artist because in second grade my color crayon drawing of a tulip won first place. Really I think perhaps that fact skewed my perspective because we were coloring in a tulip from an outline and everyone had the same outline like in a coloring book. We then had to cut out the flowers before they were entered into competition. Many of my classmates were so carefully drawing within the lines of the drawing but a friend of mine pointed out that if you colored outside of the lines it didn't matter since we were cutting them out. So I basically just scratched back and forth to make a real deep rich color and cut along the lines. The guy who told me that came in second place. Well anyway so the contest for the Three Billy Goats Gruff was won by an emotionally disturbed kid. I was so humiliated to be beaten by him that I got a book with pictures of various types of goats and learned to draw them very well. Well enough that my male classmates would pay me a nickle (around 1960) to draw them a picture of a bony sick looking goat and put a tag on a chain around it's neck with the name of the female classmate that they were mad at. I did about 10 pictures at 5 cents a piece. (IRS if you are reading this I didn't know I was supposed to file a report). So I am not sure if I had genetics for it but my mother was always a creative and artistic person. Part of it is definitely practice. I think really great artists in any media all have some personal issues driving them to excel. I might have become a great artist but my problems were resolved before I got any good at it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think anyone can become Einstein from mere study. I don't think anyone can become Michael Jordan from mere practice.

But the OP question is not, can you be the best in the field you choose? The OP question is can you learn things that appear to be innate talent. I say, yes. One needs to tease out the elements and endeavor to learn them. Perhaps a naturally artistic painter sees without having it pointed out where to put the light, how to draw the eye in and so on. But that doesn't mean such knowledge cannot also be learned.

I think I'm making great progress with my book. Some things are a struggle. But I started with a story and almost zero writing artistry. I've already been able to apply some very basic stuff, "show, don't tell" and as soon as I understood what that meant I was able to apply it.

One can learn an art the same way one can learn physics. It's doesn't mean you'll be a Newton or an Einstein, or a Jordan or a Dali. But most people not born with talent but born with an adequate intellect can learn the craft.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't think anyone can become Einstein from mere study. I don't think anyone can become Michael Jordan from mere practice.

I agree with both of these examples, but not for the reasons you give. I do agree that being truly exceptional takes more than mere practice, but I disagree that one of the required traits is a born-in "talent", unless you want to count some kind of happenstance genetic physiological advantage as a "talent". To me, talent is something you create and develop during the course of your life. It's roots may reach far back in your life, but the seed is definitely planted sometime after you're born IMO.

I never liked the word "gifted". To me it implies something that was given by someone else. Of course it's extremely rare that "gifted" individuals have "gifted" parents, so who gave the "gift"?

God, of course.

It's giving "God" credit for someone's very hard work, which to me is disrespectful.

[Dogdoctor]

Einstein was very intelligent. You can't learn that. Micheal Jordan played basketball and you can learn that. You can learn to move your body and become well trained at anything you have the dedication to pursue. To have the drive to push yourself to excel is a whole other issue. Anyone can learn to draw. Maybe a lot of people lack the drive to persist at it till they feel they are good enough but anyone can do it.

[Robert2]

The point here is some of us have talents that can be add to by schooling. If you do not have say artistic talent then all the education will not make you an expert. Take NASCARS some have natural talent and are self taught other learn while othera are only street drivers at best.

[Unlike a Bull]

I failed art multiple times in high school. It was also a requirement to graduate. Finally, my senior year, I made a deal with the teacher that I would come in after school and clean the art room (in addition to doing all the classwork) in exchange for a "d" in the course so I could graduate. For whatever reason, the way my brain works, I can imagine what I want to draw or paint or whatever, but when I go to actually commit it to canvas it turns out all wrong. I spent hours upon hours practicing my crappy art and never got any better.

Math comes easily to me though.

[Howie Felterbush]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

I learned to draw because of an incident that occurred in third grade. The teacher wanted to do a pictorial scroll kind of thing for the three billy goats gruff and she took auditions for who would be the artist. Now I fancied myself an artist because in second grade my color crayon drawing of a tulip won first place. Really I think perhaps that fact skewed my perspective because we were coloring in a tulip from an outline and everyone had the same outline like in a coloring book. We then had to cut out the flowers before they were entered into competition. Many of my classmates were so carefully drawing within the lines of the drawing but a friend of mine pointed out that if you colored outside of the lines it didn't matter since we were cutting them out. So I basically just scratched back and forth to make a real deep rich color and cut along the lines. The guy who told me that came in second place. Well anyway so the contest for the Three Billy Goats Gruff was won by an emotionally disturbed kid. I was so humiliated to be beaten by him that I got a book with pictures of various types of goats and learned to draw them very well. Well enough that my male classmates would pay me a nickle (around 1960) to draw them a picture of a bony sick looking goat and put a tag on a chain around it's neck with the name of the female classmate that they were mad at. I did about 10 pictures at 5 cents a piece. (IRS if you are reading this I didn't know I was supposed to file a report). So I am not sure if I had genetics for it but my mother was always a creative and artistic person. Part of it is definitely practice. I think really great artists in any media all have some personal issues driving them to excel. I might have become a great artist but my problems were resolved before I got any good at it.

That's exactly how Thomas Kinkade got his start.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I agree with both of these examples, but not for the reasons you give. I do agree that being truly exceptional takes more than mere practice, but I disagree that one of the required traits is a born-in "talent", unless you want to count some kind of happenstance genetic physiological advantage as a "talent". ...

I'm wondering if you missed my point because I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Do you think I said, "required traits are a born-in "talent"? That's not what I said.

I don't, however think someone with Down's syndrome, for example, is going to reach an understanding of physics required to make an Einsteinian discovery. So one at least needs the genetic requirements for basic skills/knowledge in whatever area one aims to be artistic in. From there learning the things an artist might know with less effort, I believe is possible most of the time.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

Einstein was very intelligent. You can't learn that. Micheal Jordan played basketball and you can learn that. ...

This is an odd statement to me. Be it physical or mental, one is still limited by one's genetics.