/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4745014
You missed my first point, which is that you cannot believe both in [artistic] talent, as a constellation of prospects, as well as its firm "detectability" by art schools. In other words, if you firmly believe in talent as an advanced constellation of prospects, which it is indeed, then you cannot mutually believe that these schools know exactly what they're doing, or even come close to it. There are too many factors inherent to artistic success - FAR TOO MANY. Get this point into your head and drill it in. That's what separates the thinking man from the shallow crab. Even the best astrologists, FORCED to back their knowledge by evidence, (more than anyone would ever ask from a talent crab), will tell you we know jack SHIT about space, when compared to everything that must be out there. So if even these great scientists will admit their humility, you're going to tell me and every other striving individual that YOU and these schools know the great equations of artistic success? I don't think so. Everything else you say in the rest of the post is irrelevant. Do some people learn quicker than others? Sure. But to have the gall to tell any individual that he has no talent will always show that the speaker of such words is an ignoramus, through and through, because he spouts over and over again that if the said individual does not possess the exact alignment of the "stars" (prospects) of talent within him, which he himself has never studied or could even name scientifically if he wanted, then he will never succeed.

Basically, the talent crab looks at the aspiring individual and tells him "Look! If the prospects of talent are not aligned within you, you will never make it!", when he himself has no idea what these prospects are, scientifically. Therefore, while he puffs his chest up in admiration for himself for theoretically being right, he in truth has no idea what he is talking about, nor is anything he says meaningful to anyone.