/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3436448

OP, do you think someone with an IQ of 95 would learn to draw (or do anything else) at the same speed as someone with an IQ of 130?

There you go.

>>3436449
you know you can always get a higher or lower IQ right? it's like someone who slacked off in school will have a lower IQ than someone who studied and got straight A's. That's not talent.

>talented people say talent doens't exist

>>3436470
>people who put 10x the effort than normal artists say talent doesn't exist.

>>3436449
>Smarter people working smarter means talent exists
That's like having someone copy tumblrshit for five years and another copying the masters for the same time and using that to prove talent exists.
If intelligence is talent then anything that can make learning faster like money, teachers, environment, friends, schools, art jobs, etc. count as talent.
Fucking 95 IQ idiot.

>>3436464
Or perhaps grades do not reflect IQ.

>>3436518
IQ tests were originally designed to assess how well students were doing in class, and which ones needed attention to catch up.

talent is literally what your IQ doesn't explain.

>>3436528
In France yeah. They wanted to see if there was a pattern that could show why some students they thought should do well didn't. IQ scores did not reflect school grades, like I said.

itt:
>>we have genetic physical differences, but we're all born with the same brain and ability to learn.

>>3436448
>Michelangelo
proof where

>>3436448
>You can get an idea of the difference between the nature of physical and mental power by contemplating the notion of Special Nobel Prizes. A cripple throwing a ball from a wheelchair is not all that different from a top athlete doing the same thing — not even in the end result, ultimately (the athlete's ball will just land a few meters further). But a clinically retarded person tackling chemistry problems? Who would actually care to set that up and observe it? Not even clinical psychologists would care to do that. Do you see how much more vast mental inequalities are compared to physical ones? And understandably so, as I've already explained, since the brain is immeasurably more complex than any other organ in the body, and certainly more than muscles, bones and ligaments.

I don't take philosophy lessons from artists

>>3436464
>you know you can always get a higher or lower IQ right?

No, this is contradicted by literally all the scientific literature on IQ, which you'd know if you weren't a dolt talking out of your ass.

>>3436448
Why would you believe in talent if you're extremely talented?

>>3436551
fucking /thread

>>3436551
but art isn't chemistry, it's more like the ball thing, anyone can smoosh paint onto a canvas, it's just the artist's paint is placed better

>>3436613
>it's more like the ball thing
very articulate

>>3436448
Sure thing buddy. Anyone can do that, just takes some work.

>>3436623
grice's maxims breh

Brad Rigney has talent. Dumbfuck drug addict or chocoholic or whatever cleans himself up and then paints like he's using zbrush and octane but it's just done by hand in PS7. Try replicating that.

>>3436633
brad "monochrome" rigney

>>3436633
I do like his work but it really looks like it's photobashed to shit. I'd love to be proven wrong.

>>3436673
His current works are mostly photobashed, but his way older works aren't. You can see his old full process from ab old Massive Black class

>>3436639
He has managed to improve over time as well. Old stuff was oversaturated and plastic. New stuff is more balanced.

>>3436673
>>3436681
Yeah he openly admits to using photos now. His work generally isn't what I like but it is impressive and I wouldn't be able to achieve it. He said he is going to do a new gumroad. Will be interesting to see how his process has changed.

>>3436473
kek

>>3436623
jej

>>3436639
lel

>>3436448
Why am I so talented then?

>>3436448
I don't think talent is innate. What creates skill comes from a natural drive and a respect for the process. An artist will get satisfaction out of a single line that contributes to the whole piece. It's what keeps them going and motivated. And ultimately what improves their skill.

I don't think being an artist requires skill in the traditional sense. If the artist is aware of their skill and the style that suits it, they can make something look good. But then again, art doesn't always have to be pretty. It's about expression, thoughts, movement, all that kind of stuff. Much of that might get lost on the more skilled artist as it's in the back of their mind, but it ends up in their art anyhow.

>>3436448
>the top telling you they are totally normals
It's like models telling you beauty is inside.
If talent wasn't a thing art school would have 95% success rate, and produce thousands of michelangelos per year.
Humans aren't equally able to learn. That's a fact.

This is blatant lie, because Jeff Watts literally acknowledge existence of talent. He said that he has extraordinary hand dexterity. Jesus we really need to spam more anime threads just to kill shit threads like this.

>>3436448
Seriously, what is it going to take to get you motherfuckers to just sit down and draw?

>>3436448
>Jeff Watts, Scott Robertson, Richard Schmid, Michelangelo all said they don't believe in talent. Why do you?
Other artists believe it exists, so what's your point?

"Study and natural talent need to be joined to reach the height of perfection in painting and sculpture, and whenever one of the two qualities is missing, the artist rarely reaches the summit, although study may well carry him most of the way."
-Giorgio Vasari

>>3436496
Talent means something internal that helps achieve results. A strong will to work is in itself a talent, like is a good learning ability, like is a good hand-eye coordination, photographic memory or visual imagination...
A good teacher is not a talent because it is something external.

Stop pretending to be intelligent if you're just spouting half finished thoughts.

>>3436448
It's more flattering for a successful artist to believe that one can only achieve what they did through hard work and not by chance.

>>3436448
As long as you don't let it stop you from doing what you love, who cares?

>>3436551
This argument is more retarded than its chemist

Of course the disabled are at a disadvantage compared to a "normal" person. "Talent" is the idea that people can be born with innate skills in a discipline. If you want to label every unskilled/unsuccessful artist as being physically/mentally disabled, be my guest, but don't act all surprised when the short bus shows up at your door.

If you want an answer to the talent/no talent debate, think about how many babies are born with the ability to speak their native language. Now ask yourself if any mentally+physically "normal" child could become fluent (enough to write and publish a book with high level grammar/prose) in a current language without ever being formally taught... And only seeing/hearing it sporadically/in small bits at most their entire life. How well do you think they'd be able to use the language? Maybe choke out a few phrases, enough to get a point across. But I don't think they'd have the same grammar and vocabulary as someone who's studied and used the language regularly throughout their life.

My explanation of artistic "talent" is people being exposed to art (and its fundamentals) at a young age and garnering such an interest that they expose themselves more and more throughout the years - eventually filling in the gaps and becoming fluent. Most of the top artists I knew at school had a lot of art exposure in their formative years from a parent, teacher, or close family friend.

Even if talent does exist, it's in our best interest to practice as though it doesn't.

>>3436448
Jeff Watts definitely said that talent exists. What he said was that anyone who puts in the workcan get good enough to be a pro with the right mindset, but talent is definitely a factor if we talk about the best of the best.

>>3436449
I came to the same conclusion when I looked into the lives of old masters like Rubens. He and many others were in the genius spectrum of IQ and were successful in many areas. That said, you can be a genius but still a loser, but work ethic + intelligence is hard to beat.

>>3436448
>>3436449
talent doesn't exist, just good genetics, self discipline and a whole lot of luck.

>>3436448
Most of IC wants talent to be a thing, it's a build in excuse as to why they never could make something of themselves. It's victim mentality. "I never made it because I didn't have "x", I never had a chance so why try. Playin' vidya all day is ok because I don't have what it takes. I feel good about being me."

Otherwise they'd have to come to grips with the 99% of people who "make it" based on their own determination and hard work. We can't have that now can we.

Successful people tell you that talent doesn't exist because they have learned that the things they thought were their advantages mattered little in the end. Anybody can excel under the right conditions and those with a lot of advantages can easily fail.

And there is one of the secrets: How people respond to something like failure.

Most faggots around here will never succeed because they are too scared to even try. Of the remaining most will fail because they couldn't handle failure. Those who have what it takes to keep trying will likely succeed unless they're complete failures.

All while they post about shitty excuses like chase familiar dead-end approaches.

>>3436861
>Most faggots around here will never succeed because they are too scared to even try.
Are you different? Because why are you posting here?

>>3436882
You will never know. But feel free to attack the messenger if it helps you cope.

>>3436890
No no no amigo. I don't need advice "how to lose weight" that coming from overweight behemoth as example. In your post you picked "all in white above everyone" position while posting in /ic/. Successful artist, especially traditional artist, would never post in /ic/ period. There is absolutely no reason to lurks here or even read 4chan for such people. So I have all rights to doubt your credibility as messenger. And I didn't even mentioned reddit spacing.

>>3436896
>waaaaah

Why would it even matter if the one posting it is successful or not? Your reaction shows that it obviously hit a soft spot.

>>3436909
>Why would it even matter if the one posting it is successful or not?
>"I don't need advice "how to lose weight" that coming from overweight behemoth as example".
The fact that you start playing the ape is already proof of your lack of credibility.
>i trigger u hue hue

>>3436915
you do seem kinda triggered

>>3436920
keep damage controlling and gives me another (You)

>>3436923
do (you)s soothe you? Here, have another to calm your nerves (scared loser)

>>3436448
the idea that literally everyone is a blank slate is beyond retarded

everybody has a different height,body shape,facial structure,personality, and voice so why the fuck would the most complex organ in our body be the same for everyone? it literally makes no sense

>>3436890
>You will never know
we know

>>3436944
and? Now that you aren't distracted by that anymore what will you now use to hide the hurtful truth that trigger you?

The talent idea is beyond retarded.
What you may consider talent, some other anon may consider shit. It all depends on what characteristics are you going to evaluate, and that's totally mediated by human perception that's been molded by certain culture. Talent doesn't exist in a vaccum, and it's existence is totally dependant on the context. Outside of human civilization, talent doesn't support itself. Is pure culture.
Fucking positivists, accept your death already.

>>3436980
You're retard.

>>3436448
No idea about the others, but Schmid is kind of a wacko. i like a few of his works, but i wouldn't trust his opinions in anything

Also, different individuals have different phenotypes: is only natural that some people are more naturally gifted for some particular activities. Nurturing is probably a more relevant factor for painting than genetics, but there's nothing you can do if you weren't raised in optimal circumstances

>>3436824
My argument is basically that brains are really complicated and because they're so complicated they have lots of ways they can be different. And since they can be different in so many ways it's almost certain that there are brains that are naturally configured to be better at art than others. Not everyone is equal you know.

Being better at art doesn't mean that you can do it without practicing.
>"Most of the top artists I knew at school had a lot of art exposure in their formative years from a parent, teacher, or close family friend."
And this isn't a very scientific way of looking at the problem, if you factored in how much exposure to art each artist had and at what age etc, etc, you would come to the conclusion that some people are better at art than others

>>3436448
>>3436980
I think what's more probable is that people that say there is no talent can't work hard with the idea that someone else has it easier. I hate studying and life drawing, honestly would not draw if I had to life draw everyday, I've heard others say they love it and do it everyday, that in it's self is a talent.

>>3436464
>you know you can always get a higher or lower IQ right?
That's what brainlets tell themselves

>>3436448
Gonna need a cite on Michelangelo, I've read many books on the man, and I've never seen any quotes from him that said he didn't believe in talent. In fact, here's a direct quote from him, where he talks about talent:
"You must know that I am, of all men who were ever born, the most inclined to love persons. Whenever I behold someone who possesses any talent or displays any dexterity of mind, who can do or say something more appropriately than the rest of the world, I am compelled to fall in love with him; and then I give myself up to him so entirely that I am no longer my own property, but wholly his."
Doesn't sound like someone who doesn't believe in talent.
But I get it, you're another untalented aspiring artist who's got an agenda to "prove" talent doesn't exist - because you don't have any.

>>3436824
Exposure early on is definitely a factor, but you can't take 10 random kids, expose them to art early on, and expect them to all become artists.
Talent is an ephemeral thing, it's hard to quantify, but it's a concept that works for talking about people who are better at it than others, that's all. Some people just have the right conditions and whatever, the right neurons or whatever, that makes them better at art than another person - and art is more than just learned skills, it's communication, it's choices, it's intent, it's conceptual, it's a million different things, which is why there's a million different artists who paint and draw differently.
I don't believe everyone can rise to the top, as artists. A rare few do. Most people can learn the basic skills, and use them, especially for doing simple things like drawing what they see. But there are the outliers, who just do it better than everyone else, and the way we've invented to explain it is a catch-all construct called "talent".
Plus, it's a spectrum, not a true/false condition. Some might have enough talent to do simple work. Then there are those with a raging talent that produces work people will pay a lot of money for, or travel across the world to see.
Generally, those who are selling something, like a course or book on art skill and technique, deny it exists, because it will sell more product.

>>3437641
technically iq or fluid intelligence can be increased, not just increasing your ability to score well on iq tests.

There's a study of separated identical twins at birth which concluded that iq was 70% genetic and 30% environmental, a substantial difference based on where the twin grew up. Identical twins that live their lives together have similar iq.

It's also worth noting there are cases of identical twins living similar lives/having similar tastes/hobbies despite never knowing about each other, which would imply your taste and things you enjoy is probably genetic.

>>3437657
I figure most of that has to do with wether you're well fed or not, since iq starts dropping once you hit 17.

>>3436449
Are you implying there aren't low IQ artists with talent?

while you can't increase your IQ you can through memorization and related teaching practice for a better IQ score estimate when you do tests.

>>3436630
Michelangelo pretty much said he worked his ass of to get good.

>>3438028
iq tests are pretty bogus though i think, i took one at uni and got 138, but i'm an idiot

>>3436448
To me, talent is your creativity, which is innate.

Anyone can learn the skillset, but just cause you know how to draw and paint, doesn't mean the ideas you put on canvas are any good.

Talent is that spark of inspiration that takes something from "that's pretty good" to "WOW!" There's plenty of artists on artstation for example who fit that definition of "skilled but not talented," most of them work for Riot Games, if you want specfic examples.

>>3436536
>but we're all born with the same brain and ability to learn
But we're literally not.

>>3438174
Ehhh. Creativity with everything is mostly trial and error. Whoever tries harder will have more chances to stumble on ‘creative’ solutions. It’s why a style takes years to develop and why we all start out drawing the same (check /beg/ or any child’s artwork).
Taleb would call art antifragile, which is why we all must draw more.

>>3438177
>China
Hmm

>>3438174
>muh creativity meme

You don’t need creativity to be good at art. Other people will tell you you’re creative if they like your work even if all you ever draw is stuff that’s around you.

>>3436824
>Even if talent does exist, it's in our best interest to practice as though it doesn't.

He's answered it better than anyone else could. It basically doesn't matter.

>>3436464
>it's like someone who slacked off in school will have a lower IQ than someone who studied and got straight A's.
They likely didnt study because they had a low IQ. Your IQ isnt shaped by your time in school its an inate ability that doesnt change

>>3438177
based china

also, everybody in the scientific community accepts that iq tests are biased towards people who received certain kind of education. is not a perfect inteligence measurment tool, but is the best we have right now

>>3436448
>people who earn their living by teaching art don't want you to think you can't learn art
HMMMMM

>>3438429
People with an IQ below 83 are literally useless. Not even the military will take them. Making statements like those misrepresent the truth and give the impression that IQ is flawed, and must be disregarded as a while, while, like all science, IQ research is something that gets polished and refined over time. It's also the greatest predictor of success in life.

>>3438302
>>3438302
It's not a meme.

You can learn to paint really we. Extraordinarily well in fact. But the stuff you create will never be groundbreaking if you lack creativity, which is something innate.

Creativity requires openess, and openess is a trait that basically defined how "open" you are to new ideas, and exploring unknown territory. People low in openess basically have an aversion to trying new things, and instead stick to formulas and established methods, not because it's more comfortable, but because their minds are literally not wired to be exploratory. They straight up can't think outside of established boundaries. The visionaries, the inventors, the explorers, the people who revolutionized their industries, these are highly creative people who had a very high degree of openess, and an innate desire, an itch if you will, to push into the unknown, to explore new ideas, and to do what hasn't been done before. That's where artistic talent derrives from. It's independent from your painting skill or draftsmanship. You're naturally born with this trait, or rather highly developed in this particular trait.

Now yes, you can forcibly increase your openess through lifestyle and specified excercise, but only to a certain degree. Your natural personality traits cannot be radically changed, especially in the short term, as they're what define YOU.

That's the truth of life, not everyone was born to be an athelet, not everyone was born intelligence, not everyone was born creative. Some people will always have more natural advantages than you. Thus doesn't mean you should give up, but it does mean that you should know and accept your limitations and your strengths. Some people will always just be born naturally more gifted and more inclined toward success than others, and no amount of hard work will ever make up for that gap. That's life.

>>3438177
This might as well be a map of the human races. Really takes the noggin for a joggin

>>3438447
GOOD point.

>>3438447
yeah but they are right, things like dynamic sketching, perspective, anatomy can be learned by anyone.

>>3438505
also tfw nobody is talking about OP's pic, which is anders ericsson, an expert on experts and proper practice. read his books and you will have a different opinion on talent.

>>3438488
>WORDS WORDS WORDS

Winston Rowntree wants his schtick back.

While you were writing your Art Appreciation 099 final essay, some boring normie painted a competent picture about his boring normie life, uploaded it to Instagram and sold it to someone because it was personal and relatable to them. Thousands of people reblogged it because it was also personal and relatable to them. Creativity doesn’t matter, creating does.

>I wish I was 140 IQ so I could piss my intelligence away drawing naked cartoon girls

>>3436746
>Jeff Watts
I remember him talking in one video in one of his streams that he hates being called talented, because he worked hard to get where he is.

>>3438520
Totally missed the point of what I said.

Creativity/Talent is what separates the good artists from the great artists, not what's stopping you from making art.

>>3436464
You can practice for an IQ test, especially if it is a standard test. But an IQ test should be specialized by the researcher him/herself.

>>3438488
>you will never be the no. 1 painter
>but you can be top 10.000

Like wtf nigga, that shit is already making it.

>>3438605
What you said is retarded.

>Talent is that spark of inspiration that takes something from "that's pretty good" to "WOW!"

The ‘something’ that does that isn’t talent or creativity. It’s the observer. Your navel-gazing about sparks and magic and shit is irrelevant. The people who are creative are the people the audience says are creative.

>>3436449
art students are clearly not the brightest bulbs in the porch

>Top 5% IQ: science
>Top 10%: engineering
>Top 20%: bussiness
>average IQ: social sciences, white collar
>Bottom 20%: ARTS, blue collar
>Bottom 10%: dangerous blue collar
>Bottom 5%: military

>>3438653
>abloobloo my internet quiz that tells me how smart people are based on arbitrary factors that mean nothing meme

>>3438653
They obviously aren't very bright if they're paying thousands of dollars for something they can learn for free. Self taught are the true high IQ artists.

>>3438472
IQ is a fairly reliable indicator of general intelligence. Not sure it's related to talent per se, but will certainly impact how effectively some one studies and grasps concepts. Humans being some kind of a blank slate is one of the dumbest ideas to gain popular acceptance.

>>3436464
Plenty of high IQ kids slack off in school because the work doesn't challenge them.

>>3438682
If only /ic/ worked even a single percent as hard as this guy. It makes no sense otherwise.

>>3438618
The "audience" is notorious for having shit taste, and an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Check mate.

The masses will like whatever they're told to like by someone they admire, regardless of how awful it is, but this fact doesn't mean talent doesn't exist, or that there is an objective difference in the quality of art. All it means is that your measuring tool "the audience" is flawed.

If you wanna draw to be popular, go right ahead. I never said that wasn't possible. But talent does indeed exist, and it manifests in a variety of ways. The people aspiring to greater things than you, are the people with talent, and nothing you do will ever make your work as good as theirs, no matter how popular you get, because they're simply born BETTER than you.

>>3438653
Art as a skill is incredibly easy to learn, and most "artists" aren't even that good, especially those majoring in fine arts. Artists learning the fundamentals to do illustration or concept art, are already far more skilled than 95% of fine artists. Fine arts are for pretentious morons who want the label of artist, but lack the skills or talent. Most of them are not very smart, no.

I would put art, as what is taught in the stick, as harder to learn than language learning, which itself isn't that hard either, because it requires a lot more skills than memorization, which is what language learning really is.

Anyone can LEARN art, not everyone can be a great artist. It's within the realm of any person to learn color theory, painting, construction, lighting, anatomy, perspective, etc... it's really not that hard, and imo, SHOULD be taught in schools. And you can even learn to create really good and appealing works of art like that. Like, really really good, professional level good. That doesn't require talent. Talent however, is in the realm of the greats. Unless you have it, you'll never be as good as Kim Jung Gi, Ruan Jia, Frank Frazetta, etc... No matter how hard you work. Their greatness is a magical combination of talent AND hard work. Just the same as you'll never be faster than Usain Bolt no matter how hard you train.

>>3438690
>Plenty of high IQ kids slack off in school because the work doesn't challenge them.
Also, because to predict success you need more than IQ, it's IQ + Conscientiousness. You need BOTH, not one or the other.

>>3438698
>popular art is bad, only unpopular things are Le True Arte

There isn’t anybody to appeal to except audiences. You’re a member of a pretentious and contrarian audience, but still an audience.

>>3438707
>still missing the point
I'm just gonna assume you have a low IQ, and this is beyond your grasp. It's ok, just stick to working on your art skills to get popular, that's all that matters in your worldview. You're clearly not talented anyway, so it doesn't matter. Ignorance is bliss and all that.

>>3438702
Only siths deal in the extreme.

>>3438714
The correct line is:

"Only Siths deal in absolutes."
Moron.

>>3438618
>Marvel movies are the height of creativity

>>3438713
>people are talented if I say they’re talented

You’re literally proving my point. You’ve declared yourself an arbiter of talent. Guess what? So’s everyone else.

>>3436448
what the fuck does michelangelo know he doesn't even know how to speak english and hes fucking dead.

>>3438780
It's rather simple really.

People who make stuff worse than me are less talented than me, people who make better stuff than me, are more talented. Simple as.

Look, I'll give you an non-shitpost answer based on personal experience:

-I tutor two kids, both 12 years old, both of whom love to draw, both from rich families, both go to the same school. I have one on Thursdays, and the other on Saturday. I'm teaching them the EXACT same material. The thurday's kid, he loves anime, and manga, but mostly just wants to draw his favorite characters, he's very self-critical, but also very social, and outgoing. He never does the homework I give him. Starting out, he was better than the Saturday kid. I've taught him perspective and construction, but he struggles with it. The saturday kid on the other hand, he's now much better than Thrusday. He started out at a very very low level, but loves to draw a lot in his free time. He does all the homework I give him, and want to improve so he can draw comics and get a career doing this. In a very short span, he's gotten a very solid grasp on 1pt and 2pt perspective, when before he would only draw totally flat stuff. And from time to time, he'll surprise me with doodles and sketches he does, applying the stuff I've taught him to bring his imagination to life.

Point being, talent is having raw passion for art, and seeing it as a means to express your creativity and ideas, not as a way to copy stuff you think is cool so you can show off. Saturday kid is eager to learn, because I'm giving him the TOOLS to help him express all the stuff he has in his head, and as a result, he learns quickly, because it's like removing the shackles in his mind.

People who are talented at art, have very high spatial IQ, and see stuff in pictures in their mind ALL the time. They also express themselves visually. This is why they're drawn to drawing at a young age. It's how they communicate. If you aren't like this, you don't have IT.

>>3438838
Oh yeah, I forgot to add, Saturday kid seems like he might be a bit autistic, and has trouble communicating verbally. But that's the thing, there's always a trade off for these things. Genius artists are generally introverted and usually lack strong verbal IQ, and mastery of language. Art is how they communicate.

>>3438472
My boy watching dah JBP yee dats my nigga enforce monogamy on those muthafuckin thots an clean yo lobster dick bitchas yooooooooo

>>3438790
Rude!

>>3438850
Damn right son. Gotta sort ourselves out. We're gonna make it bro.

>>3438780
No, the word talent denotes someone having a natural facility for a certain task. Ever hear of some one being a "natural" at something? That's what the word means. It doesn't mean some one who is skilled necessarily, because there are people who squander their talent, and people with limited talent who get good through perseverance.

>>3438838
>If you prefer observational drawing over construction, you're not talented.
And it's so fucking obvious that the Saturday kid would take to a nuts-and-bolts Scott Robertson approach, but if the Thursday kid isn't into it, why aren't you throwing Bargue plates at him?

>>3438838
>Point being, talent is having raw passion for art, and seeing it as a means to express your creativity and ideas, not as a way to copy stuff you think is cool so you can show off.
Literally what is the difference

>>3438838
The Thursday one will eventually surpass the Saturday one and you know it. He is the true talented one. The Saturday one is just getting by with work, but he'll become a NGMI when he realizes he can't get his career because he lacks talent.

>>3438874
Because I'm not? I'm literally letting him draw anime like he wants, and using that to teach construction, but he's still very slow to pick it up.

Meanwhile Saturday kid picked that up in a day, and is now mastering perspective.

Thursday kid also wants to get better, and he's way more sociable. But he just lacks the spark. He doesn't have the raw passion for it that compels him to draw every waking moment, like Saturday kid. He'd much rather play videogames or whatever, than even finish his drawings outside of class. Why? Because he likes art cause he likes manga and things it's cool, but he was never drawn to it innately. Saturday kid on the other hand doesn't much care for manga, but started dabbling in stop motion animation, comics, and other stuff well before he started with me. He's always finding ways to creatively express himself through art. THAT'S the spark. That's talent.

>>3438876
There's a very big difference. And if you don't notice it, don't worry, it doesn't apply to you.

>>3438891
Alright, have you asked the Thursday kid if he wants to get into observational drawing? Hell, buy him a copy of Keys and then you can talk about him, but this is like bitching a bird is mobility impaired because all you've been doing is giving it swimming lessons.

>>3438919
I'm not bitching about anything, I'm giving you a personal anecdote as an example.

If you want more, I got tons of others, I see the difference between people who have talent, and people who don't everywhere all the time. It's very noticeable if you know what to look for. Not just in art either, you can see this stuff in writing, sports, dance, drama, music, just about anything really.

If Talent wasn't real, Michael Jackson wouldn't have been one of a kind. When talent meets hard work, you get exceptional people, who excel in their respective fields.

As an artist, if you really want to improve, you should learn to separate talent from hard work. There are people out there with very little artistic skill, who have a lot of talent, it's noticeable. You see certain things in their work, and a ton of potential if they were ever taught the skills. Those people will also learn very quickly as a result. The inverse is also true, very skilled artists, who've put the work in, but just lack the natural talent. For example:

https://www.artstation.com/ironstylus

Very skilled artist. Incredibly skilled, absolutely knows his craft, and has studied fundies inside and out. Zero talent though. You can't FIX this. There's no way to get this guy to make better things, simply cause he lacks the innate ability to be as creative as people who DO have natural talent.

If you want to know if YOU are talented or not. Self-reflect. Is art a means of communication for you? Do you have high spacial IQ? Are you very creative? Are you highly developed in openness? Are you someone willing to explore new ideas and concepts. Do you learn things easily? Did you start drawing as a kid? And I mean very young, like 3. People who are talented at drawing, did.

>>3438945
Post your work.

>>3438952
No, because my work means nothing in relation to what I'm saying, and you're just gonna use it as a means to slam me, stalk me, and shitpost against me cause I said something you didn't like.

However, if you want the work of an artist with lower artistic skill than Iron Stylus, but WAYYYYYYYYYYY more talent, look no further than the creator of Dragonball, Dr. Slump, and lead artist for Dragon Quest, and Chrono Trigger: Akira Toriyama.

It's undeniable that Toriyama is far more creative that Stylus will ever be, despite working with a simpler and much easier art style. His designs are ICONIC, and wildly popular, while Stylus just lacks that spark, despite having specified training for character design.

>>3439393
>Richard Schmid was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1934. His earliest artistic influence came from his maternal grandfather, Julian Oates, an architectural sculptor. Richard’s initial training in landscape painting began at the age of twelve with the Chicago painter Gianni Cilfone. Subsequent studies in anatomy and figure drawing allowed his entrance at eighteen into the American Academy of Art in Chicago where he continued into the full range of classical techniques under William H. Mosby.

........

>>3439398
literally proof that its all hard work

you would be just as good if you had the same training or if you spent 10 years studying with someone like michelangelo.

Sure worry about having talent or not having it. Waste away thinking about that shit.
Meanwhile some "talentless" guy who works hard, gets the job and paints at a level that is fun for him.

You don't have to be the top 0.1% or whatever. If you feel that you do then do something else. Are you even top 0.1% in anything? No? Then fucking kill yourself if you think talent is going to decide what you can or cannot do. Your life is already over.

>>3439398

i-is this white privilage?

>>3439393
>> he himself believes in talent, but due to so many factors it can't be measured who has it so he

chooses to ignore it.
>>3439407
pic related makes alot of this kind of art, he enjoys it I'm sure. He is obviously not talented or

inclined to do concept art and it would be a drag for him to do it. How much you enjoy something is talent in itself. If you think about something all the time you make more connects and learn to innovate/think of new ways to do things. Look at Rodney Mullin, the best skateboarder to ever live due to his early and life long daily obsession with skateboarding, which was probably due to suspected autism. Rodney invented the ollie, heel-flip, and kick-flip and majority of the known skating tricks of today. If you watch a video of Rodney you'll see he's way ahead than any other skater, kim jung gi of skating, he's completely one with the skateboard. Nobody has ever come close to Rodney Mullin and few will likely in the future, probably because nobody was obsessed with skating as much as he was. You can't teach obsession, or the things you enjoy and the level in which you do, that is a talent.

>>3438549
While the term "talent" is a nice way to explain away ones own lack of success within a subject, it's somewhat an insult to those who did put in the work to become good.
So it's understandable that good artists don't like it.

>>3439407
Except it's not? Lol.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Toriyama

>Akira Toriyama was born in Nagoya, Aichi, Japan. He has recalled that when he was in elementary school all of his classmates drew, imitating anime and manga, as a result of not having many forms of entertainment.[1] He believes that he began to advance above everyone else when he started drawing pictures of his friends, and after winning a prize at the local art studio for a picture of One Hundred and One Dalmatians, began to think "art was fun".[1]

>Before becoming a manga artist, he worked at an advertising agency in Nagoya designing posters for three years.[2] After quitting his previous job, Toriyama entered the manga industry by submitting a work to an amateur contest in a Jump magazine in order to win the prize money.[3] While it did not win, Kazuhiko Torishima, who would later become his editor, contacted him and gave him encouragement.[4]


Zero formal training. Just jumped in, and started drawing manga. Became a far more successful and better character designer that people who studied character design and production art as a career.

The key here is, Toriyama started drawing at a young age, very young, and thought it was fun.

Schmidt likewise, also claims to have begun drawing at a young age. Schmidt also recieved formal training at a young age, he just already had the talent for it. And the fact that his grandpa is a painter, should be all proof you need of his latent talent, as that stuff is genetic.

Again, talent exists. Again, I bring up Michael Jackson.

>>3439421
>>3439421
No one is telling anyone to worry about talent, in fact, I've been telling people the exact opposite. You litteraly don't need talent to make it. You can get really far on hard work and effort alone, like really fucking far. But that doesn't mean talent doesn't exist.

For one, if you don't like art enough to be able to sit down for 12 hours straight and just draw... should you even bother? It's an honest question. Having passion for the craft is part of talent. More than that though, people with talent will learn and progress faster, and will go much further than you.

Is it really that hard to admit that there will always be people who are better than you just because they were born that way? I mean, that's life. Life isn't fair, but that's just the way it is. If you're born ugly, girls won't like you, if you're born weak, you'll never be a great athelete, if you're born stupid, you'll have a hard time learning. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but you should accept your limitations, if only to live a happier life.

If you don't have talent, you're likely not competing with the people who do anyway, as they began drawing WELL before you ever did, and are gonna go much further than you plan to anyway. These people exist in every field of life, so you're better off just focusing on what you can do for yourself, and comparing yourself only to yourself and focusing on your progress. That said, art as a carreer means 8+ hours of drawing a day. If you can't do that, why are you torturing yourself?

>>3438945
That guy is very good, what the fuck are you on about
Crabs are teaching art to kids now? What a time to be alive

>>3439434
Pretty much it's taken as an insult cause it's used to undermine the hard work they put in.

>oh, you're just that good cause you're so talented

No, they still worked hard. Talent doesn't erase the hard work. That said, personally, I'd view it from a different angle. You're born better than others, AND you worked hard.

>>3439439
Did you read my post, or is nuance to difficult for you?

Here, I'll repeat myself for you:

>talent is what separates a GOOD artist from a GREAT artist
>IronStylus is good, he's very skilled in fact, but he lacks talent. His character designs are boring, and overdesigned
>Toriyama for comparison lacks the same technical skill IronStylus has. He has zero formal training in art and character design, works with a simpler and easier art style, and lacks the same skill with values, painting, and perspective that Stylus has. Yet, Toriyama's creativity and talent are clear as day. He has created some of the most iconic and memorable character designs to ever exist.

You can't TEACH someone to have good ideas. You can't teach someone creativity, or inspiration. You can teach them shape language, design theory, drafting, perspective, anatomy, construction, etc... etc ... but the ideas that come out of their head will always be wholly theirs. And that's where talent comes into play. The ideas Stylus has in his head are nowhere near as rich and creative as the ones Toriyama has.

>>3439446
He's creative you dumb nut

>>3439448
Not really.

>>3439451
Yes
Now crawl back into your bucket

>>3439454
He's really not.

Don't worry buddy, once you crawl out of /beg/inner hell, you'll stop worshipping mediocre artists who have the skills you lack.

>>3439459
How much more drawing to get out of beginner hell u.u

>>3439462
Takes about two years, depending on how talented you are.

People who lack observational drawing skills like hand-eye coordination because they never drew much as children, will have a harder time. If you've never drawn before, put the studies on hold for a while, and just copy existing art of stuff you like as best as you can, till you get really good at copying. That skill in copying will then make applying perspective and the like much easier to learn.

>>3439451
Wavedash Games is a total disaster. I swear the only decent artist on that team is Keinan, and his talent is being squandered. He's too good for a shitty product like Icons, they're not even using the designs he puts forward. Hell if the game used Keinan's art style, it wouldn't look like total dogshit.

>>3439459
t. crab that won't post his work

>beauty doesn't exist
>says the 1% top model millionaire

Artistic talent is like intelligence, quantity varies from peopple to people, and you can't discard the data of how many people fail just because you are happy to be in the winning side.

>>3439515
>you can't discard the data of how many people fail just because you are happy to be in the winning side.

I'm not even denying talent exists, but maybe they fail for reasons separate from the notion of artistic talent? Kind of like how some people succeed despite having no talent.

Maybe talent isn't a big factor in whether you make it or not.

>>3439535
Not that guy.

That's what I've been saying all thread. You don't need talent to succeed, nor to be a good artist. But it certainly does exist to varying degrees. And when you combine exceptional talent, with highly refined skill, you get someone who is really one of a kind.

The amount of talent you have defines your ceiling, as well as how quickly you'll learn the basics.

And this is true for not just art, but all areas of life. People always like to go on about Talent vs. Hard Work, as if they were mutually exclusive, but the fact is, a lot of people with talent also work very hard, and those are the ones who go very far in life.

>>3438447
touché