/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2085746
>Natural talent
Doesn't exist

>how much hard work?
>how much natural talent?

A lazy fucker with a lot of talent will get their ass whupped by someone who busts their ass working and trying to improve every day. I've seen this happen in a lot of art classes I've taken. I have seen "talented" (not all but some) people end the class at about the same level they started at, leaning on what they are already capable of and not reaching very much, meanwhile someone who's hungry for improvement increases by leaps and bounds. Sure they undergo a lot of shitty time and struggle, but they improve more.

But-
A hard worker with a natural talent will kick the shit out of someone who works hard but doesn't have a lot of natural talent.

Finally
>NONE OF THIS MATTERS
I know a talentless hack that works in the videogame industry, I know a supremely talented artist who's barely making ends meet. And many others in between.

Work on your art instead of wasting your time with this philosophical bullshit. Or better yet, go bother another board.

>>2085751
What about art prodigies? It's obvious they have innate abilities most people don't have. I think that counts as natural talent.

>>2085757
Well put. If you like the art shit, kick your ass at it, and love every minute of it.

>>2085758

Of course, early bloomers do exist, and should be nurtured. Prodigies dazzle us with their virtuoso piano performances, quick and efficient chess moves, and imaginative paintings. While their performance would surely be impressive at the age of 40, prodigies typically reach adult levels of performance before the age of 10. These early bloomers become attracted to a domain early, and learning then accelerates rapidly. When engaged in their domain of interest, prodigies tend to focus like a laser beam, entering a state of "flow", in which the task is effortless and enjoyable, and time recedes in the background.

Take academic prodigy Michael Kearney. Michael started talking at age four months and reading at eight months. He soaked up the elementary curriculum by the age of four, entered college at the age of six, and graduated at 10. His father, Kevin Kearney, observed that it was as though his son had a "rage to learn". Psychologist Martha J Morelock, who has worked with prodigies including Michael, argues: "The kind of intense engagement these children exhibit is a reflection of a brain-based need to learn – a craving for intellectual stimulation matching their cognitive requirements in the same way that the physical body craves food and oxygen."

>>2085758
>>2085776
While this is certainly part of the prodigy phenomenon, other factors undoubtedly make a contribution. Based on detailed interviews with a number of prodigies and their family members, David Henry Feldman and Lynn Goldsmith concluded that the prodigy phenomenon is the result of a lucky coincidence of factors. This includes the existence of a domain matched to the prodigy's proclivities and interests. But it also requires a willingness to put in the hours necessary to develop the talent, availability of the domain in the prodigy's geographical location, healthy social/emotional development, family aspects (birth order and gender), education and preparation (both informal and formal), cultural support, public recognition for achievement, access to training resources, material support from family members, at least one parent completely committed to the prodigy's development, family traditions that favour the prodigy's development and historical forces, events, and trends.

A closer look at the development of talent allows us to put things in perspective. While early bloomers exist, we shouldn't dismiss the seemingly untalented. Life is not a zero-sum game. Just because one person displays talent early on doesn't mean that others can't burst on to the scene years later. Which is why it's an egregious error for "experts" (such as parents or teachers) to suggest limits on what people can ultimately achieve.

>>2085777
>>2085758
In recent years it has become clear that the 10-year rule is not actually a rule, but an average, with substantial variation around the mean. Exceptions to the 10-year rule have been found across the arts, sciences, sports and leadership. Some people take much longer than 10 years to become an expert, whereas others get to the same point in far less time. For instance, four-time Ironman triathlete world champion Chrissie Wellington didn't compete professionally until the age of 30, but won her first world championship less than a year later.

These findings suggest that a concept such as talent may be required to help explain the development of high performance. But what is talent? Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton argues that talent is best thought of as any package of personal characteristics that accelerates the acquisition of expertise, or enhances performance given a certain amount of expertise. In other words, talent allows a person to "get better faster" or "get more bang for the buck" out of a given amount of expertise.

Of course, whether a unique package of personal characteristics counts as a talent depends on the domain. But even talent within a single domain can be individualised. People can mix and match their own unique package of characteristics in various ways to express the same talent. For instance, consider that the person with extremely high levels of perseverance and motivation can offset other characteristics that may be less than stellar by comparison, such as a poor memory. What's important is the total package, not the precise mix of personal characteristics.

>>2085757
>I know a talentless hack that works in the videogame industry, I know a supremely talented artist who's barely making ends meet. And many others in between.

names brah

>>2085757
>I have seen "talented" (not all but some) people end the class at about the same level they started at, leaning on what they are already capable of and not reaching very much
tfw this is you

>>2085856
Yea lemme share my friends names on 4chan without their consent. I mean it's not like I come to this board to be anon or anything... amirite? They frequent this board as well and will reveal themselves if they so desire, last time I asked they gave me the same response I'm giving you, this board is fun cause it's anonymous.

One of them works at Way Forward and is currently working on the remake of Shantae as a character animator and has been working there for a while, also worked on Duck Tails for them.

The other one was classically trained at the Florence Academy of Art and lives in one of the poorest counties of the US of A.

Again, none of this matters and you shouldn't care. Work on your art anon.

>>2085875
I know, it's pretty damn sad, but you can't make people be motivated, some people would rather just skate through life with the talents they've already acquired rather than continue to strive to get better. Let me post for you all a picture of my humble beginnings.... You can see other stuff of mine in the previous posts.

I'm one of the talentless fucks who just works and works. Still not gud, but having too much fun to stop.

>>2085887
The talentless hack works on Shantae? Goddamn, I'm this guy. >>2078704

>>2085746
Yeah i think so

>>2085910
Yea... you might be someone they were considering hiring to replace them. They are better than the work you posted, but not by much.

To be entirely fair, they are not truly a talentless hack, but one of those people who skates by on what they are capable of without really striving to become better. They are complacent with their skill level....

Also word to the wise... Way Forward's pay is shit. They get a flat rate for every game they make from the license holder and get no cut of any additional profits. Since it's a flat fee they get paid to remake it, they pinch every penny they can. I was considering attempting to get a job there myself until this was explained to me.

Keep working on your stuff and try to find a job somewhere else.

>>2085781
You really couldn't sum this shit up? seriously, like what the fuck?

>>2085986
Simplifying it is what leads to stupid fucking threads like this one. Shit is complicated anon, not simple and easy. Get used to it, you'll be an adult someday.

>>2085746
Well, yes. If a talented person doesn't draw, then naturally he will be surpassed by someone who works hard. However, under the exact same circumstances, the talented person will have the edge.

You faggots don't seem to realize that while talent is very real, the primary reason the vast majority of people fail at something, is because they don't work at it because they're lazy or unmotivated.
If people weren't inherently lazy, we'd all know how to play instruments and speak multiple languages, but most people don't even have a single creative hobby.

So yes, the most important factor is simply the willingness to do the work.

I heard a good way of thinking it.
You are born with a one digit number, 1-9
Your hard work adds the zero behind it.
Say you were born the most horribly bad artist, 2, and then theres is the 9, who just draws sometimes. You with your hardwork become 20.

>>2086034
It's not completely off, but your scale is.
Most human traits and talents follow a bell curve, so about 70% will fall within the talent level of, say, 4-6. Then the further up or down the scale you go, the fewer people you'll find.

>>2085758
Art prodigies just learn faster at the beginning, which is just a matter of getting lucky with how they learn. No one is born with ability.

>>2086034
the difference is definitely not that exaggerated

>>2085746
i don't really care. all i know is that i have to work in order to get better.

>>2085746
Technical skill - hard work
Natural talent - creativity.

>>2085746
I have no idea, but you can suck at both and still earn big bucks with your mediocre art.

>>2087470

this. lol. if it's money we are talkign about, don't worry about any talent you'd think you'd possibly need. because you don't.

>>2085746
Talent is earned not birthed

>>2085746
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmmjXGwarU

>>2085746
My favorite painter

>>2085776
>>2085777
>>2085781
TL;DR

>>2087491
Talent is burned not earthed

>>2087519

Talent is shaken not stirred.

>>2085746
What was his name again ?

>>2087516
lel

>stop it guys! I'm a lazy fuck so instead of drawing I spend my days here and I really need to hear that I just don't have the right genetics to be good

>>2085746
Obviously not. Otherwise every dumb retard could become an artist.

>>2085746
Everyone needs to work hard. Even those with "Natural Talent".
You know, unless they work in a vacuum where they're the only true icon of ability. Then they can just coast. But what with global communication and social media these days, that's a bit of an impossibility.

Good luck standing out.

>>2087622
>Implying any dumb retard is willing to work as hard as you need to on one thing for the rest of their lives.

>>2087622
What kind of retarded logic is that? Having to work hard for something is what makes most people give up. You are assuming that everyone can work hard but fails because they lack talent when in reality, there are probably way more talented people who fail because they don't work hard enough.

>>2087640
Isn't that what being a retard means?
Just having the single-mindedness to focus on only one subject (Your art) and neglect all else is a kind of strength in itself that very very very few individuals possess.

>>2087640
Actually this is often exactly what dumb people do.
They often work their asses off because they failed in school.
Just because you are slow minded does not mean you have to be lazy, just like being intelligent does not mean you are hard working.

>>2087641
I never said they always fail due to lack of talent. Stop putting words in my mouth retard. Of course hard work is also important, but many people will never be able to become an artist simply because they are too dumb. Talented people easily can become artists though. It just depends on what you consider as "talented". Even if they are so lazy to just be hobby artists, those are also artists if they have obvious talent.

>>2087530
Provoked Pablo

>>2087675
>single-mindedness to focus
That's not the same as hard work.
>>2087759
That's actually a fair point, but you still need to apply knowledge and study to improve on anything.

>>2087774
>you still need to apply knowledge and study to improve on anything
Sure, but I personally do not find this that hard. Even if you only practice for some months, you already can create interesting stuff. I've seen enpugh people who hardly ever created something and still were able to produce neat stuff. What is really hard about being an artist, even for talented people, is to be really professional and putting out work after work while still maintaining high quality. But creating "decent" stuff, being able to express yourself through art, is actually not really that difficult, if you are talented. It's just difficult to do this like a machine, which you have to do as a professional.

>>2085758
Google Akiane Kramarik

Her "art" is cheesy and campy so far. Totally forgettable.

(she's a woman, what do you expect)

>>2087415
this

>>2087928
>(she's a woman, what do you expect)
fucking savage

>>2087928
>(she's a woman, what do you expect)
I smell some saltiness.

>>2087928
idiot

Being able and/or willing to work hard can be considered a talent

Natural talent doesn't exist, that's why Mozart composed his first pieces when he was 5 and Chopin was regularly performing for the local gentry when he was 7.

>>2088777
and now you have your excuse to suck (no natural talent). enjoy your shitty life.