This is why I don't believe in 'talent'.

Why don't you believe in talent?

What you mistake for talent is nothing but skill. And skill is nothing but practice and experience.

And I've never met a person with a 'talent' who was actually any good at it without lots of practice.

good point

Still, a person with natural talent who practices diligently will always outperform someone with little to no talent, despite how much they may practice.

Yes, talent is real in the genetic sense, being predisposed to being good at certain things. You are correct in that talent is nothing without skill, though.

I entirely disagree. I don't believe in talent in the genetic sense, either. Everything is experience and practice. Early childhood experience can often manifest itself later as 'talent'. Don't construe this as something negative for the people who have 'talent', on the contrary, it's a positive for those who don't. How many people could be great artists, but think they have no 'talent', and never try? Or those that do try, and are discouraged, because they don't think they have any 'talent'? No, this makes it very clear that the only failing is something under their control, and thus, that they can correct it by practicing more, by seeking proper instruction. Or it means that they don't enjoy it, that they put no heart in it, and that they shouldn't be doing it anyway.
So, no, I don't believe in talent. And there's not really a point to the argument, because I can't prove there's no genetic component anymore than you can prove there is. Maybe, when we understand how the brain works, we can make a more definite determination. But as it is right now, with how I understand the brain to work, I don't believe in talent. A child who has musical 'talent' is nothing but a child who was exposed to music, and liked it for some reason or the other, and latched onto it in the same way that another child might spend all their time lying on the sidewalk with chalk in their hand, and become an artist, or bury themselves in books, or movies, or math, and have 'talent' in those areas.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just telling you what I think about it, and I certainly apply the same considerations to myself. I don't have any artistic talent. You might say I do, but I won't, and I'm the artist.

Also, don't construe for a moment that I mean no one is smarter than anyone else (Though, I've never met a truly stupid child. Stupidity seems to develop later in life), because there certainly are smarter people. I don't pretend to know how much is genetic and how much is environmental, and I certainly lean towards the idea that smarter people have a different way of thinking, and they are smarter because of this, and not necessarily because their brains function better or differently. No, this applies entirely and only to talent. I just find it quite hard to believe that a brain that evolved to swing through trees and later to dash through grass, and hunt, and survive, could have any sort of genetic component geared towards talents in art or language or mathematics.

I agree jm, if you argue something people don't really care about in the longest form possible it means people are less likely to disagree with you

Yes. Naturally.

There are studies showing the genetic relation between talent and skill. I'll let you look them up because clearly you care so much, judging by the length of your last post.

He's right, I kinda wanted to debate about this and figure it out, but that post turned me off

Technically you havent "improved." To my eyes at least. It looks more like your style changed. *shrug*

This is still "digital" painting, which is nowhere near as difficult as real painting.

It's also about only half as awesome.

So you'll wade through several pages of debate, but pass on my entire position stated at once? But thank you, Jon'C is right - I did not want a debate at all, so I said everything I had to say; there's nothing left for me to debate. It would just be all of you telling me how wrong I was.

Now, Eyebrows.

You are very talented

In all seriousness though, that's really, really incredible work. Nice job.

I'd just like to point out that there are children that show amazing artistic ability at a young age (4-8) while others have a very hard time. Obviously that comes from somewhere. If it's not "talent" then I don't know what is. I suppose you could consider it skill brought on by genetic predisposition, but that's basically talent.

Anyways, your newest one is quite nice, I like it.

Three or four more hours of hair and it's done.



Just started.

Thought the kid had some sort of goatee there XD

Dude. They are pretty nice, shows you have skill... but finish the pics before posting them, a blob of color isn't exactly something that looks good or that we can comment on.

hey isuwen, why don't you take a seat over there

Was that an attempt at humor, or are you just a jackass?

Doesn't do me any good to be told something is horribly wrong after I'm done.

Paint a shirt on that little girl with the pigtail, pedo.

You're clearly jealous of my talent.

(Irony duly noted.)

XD

Back when I was learning to draw (and before I decided I didn't have time to practise) I read that all children seem to understand proper form when drawing but most loose that ability when they start learning language.

The hardest part about drawing is learning to draw what you see, instead of the pattern stored in your head. It makes sense that the pattern wouldn't be able to override what the child actually sees if they haven't learned the pattern yet. I don't think it would have any correlation specifically with learning language, though.

Language is kind of like polarizing a magnet, as it arranges the way your brain works in very specific ways where before there was chaos. It forces the brain to categorize and organize even abstract concepts like communication. People with poor social skills have become far too categorical with communication, missing subtleties in others that cannot be easily categorized. Learning to speak is less about vocalization and far more about assigning expectations to objects so that you can more generally understand them.

Nice paintings.

IIRC it has to do with the child associating things with symbols (words) instead of (like you said) just drawing what you see.