Talentcrabs BTFO

[Anonymous No.4743722]

Source: Alla Prima

[Anonymous No.4744199]

Fine

[Anonymous No.4744201]

If you don't have talent you're never going to make it.

[Anonymous No.4744203]

Since I started drawing I've seen so many fags surpassing me in a shorter period of time that nothing will convince me that talen't isn't real/not important.

[Anonymous No.4744208]

>>4743722
>roastie
Opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.4744225]

>>4744201
lol

[Anonymous No.4744257]

>>4744203
Whatever you need to cope

>It’s not my fault, I-I wasn’t given talent.

[Anonymous No.4744272]

>>4744257
That's true though. How else do you explain that niggas who draw less than me and put less effort progress faster? Talent.

[Anonymous No.4744281]

>>4744272
How do you know they draw less than you faggot?
>Inb4 you do stacks of paper of mindless fundies instead of life drawing

[Anonymous No.4744283]

>>4744281
>life drawing
>when you have 0 understanding of fundamentals

[Anonymous No.4744285]

>>4744281
honestly some people really dont have any "talent" for art lmao

[Anonymous No.4744290]

>>4744283
What the fuck do you think life drawing is for? Even if you're completely garbage and just started life drawing WILL make you better, be it for understanding lightning, improving your line quality/confidence and most important of all: building your fucking visual library. Are you refering to yourself by posting your shitty wojak picture?
>>4744285
>Drawing """"practically"""" everyday for 1.5 hours a day
Huh weird results right?

[Anonymous No.4744297]

The only people who bother about having talent are the ones who don't have it.
Talentend people will describe it as their passion, their drive, their lifegoal, it's a second nature to them.
And it's a good thing to surround yourself with talented people, because their drive is contagious and passionate people will love sharing with others.

[Anonymous No.4744299]

>>4743722
you must be at least 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.4744301]

>>4744290
Yeah sure retard, you can also learn how to perform surgery by practicing it on living people without any prior knowledge

[Anonymous No.4744303]

>>4744283
Maybe you suck at drawing because you're fucking retarded?
Life drawing IS fundies.

[Anonymous No.4744307]

I don't know, think about school days and how some kids are really good at learning math, and some just cannot grasp it.
Same shit here.

[Anonymous No.4744308]

>>4744301
>you can also learn how to perform surgery by practicing it on living people without any prior knowledge
But surgeons literally learn how to perform surgery by doing so on corpses.

[Anonymous No.4744309]

>>4744308
And before that they study and memorize a fuckton of info on how human body works, not start dissecting it right off the bat.
>>4744303
Life drawing is what you do after you get a good grasp on fundies you brain-dead nigger.

[Anonymous No.4744315]

>>4744309
Drawing simple still lives are literally baby’s first study, I’m really not sure why you think it’s impossible until you draw 1000 boxes.

[Anonymous No.4744318]

>>4744272
Everyone has a different learning curvature. Person A might make more progress than person B after two years, but person B might make more progress after five years. Person A might keep improving for twenty years, while person B stagnates are ten. There is no way for anyone to tell beforehand. And this learning curvature isn't predetermined or anything, your experiences and mindset will influence it more than anything. A lot of people also don't take the time to simply try and experiment and discover what comes to them more naturally, whether it be in style, method, medium etc and then chalk up their slow improvement to a lack of talent when they're simply barking up the wrong tree.

[Anonymous No.4744322]

>>4743722
Pretty sure a bit of talent runs in my family. My uncle used to draw tremendously well (he doesn't anymore and is bad now) and my dad's pretty decent. All in all it doesn't matter if you never develop it properly, you'll lose to those who put in the work.

[Anonymous No.4744324]

>>4744315
Properly rendering an apple, especialy in cross hatching may be "baby's first study" but it's actualy quite hard and requires a good amount of knowledge on texture, lights and shape.

[Anonymous No.4744327]

>There is no way to detect it before the fact
There are people who achieve mastery in months and people who draw for years and are still /beg/. Talent-deniers are a joke.

[Anonymous No.4744331]

>>4744327
Although I don't deny talent and it's effects on your learning speed, it also boils down to your analytic skills. There are people who can analyze their mistakes and learn / progress from them in a couple drawings, while others will repeat the same mistakes on the next 1000 drawings.

[Anonymous No.4744337]

>>4743722
Well what dyou expect them to say? Dont bother, dont buy our tutorials, purchase our products? No.

Theyre correct in that you have to make sure your pupils have the idea of talent (determinism) out of their head because you cant teach someone who believes themselves that they suck. But its factually incorrect that that talent (or beneficial disposition towards the abilities that make drawing easier) is not important. If you have two people, one is talented and the other isnt and have them do the same course, the talented individual will learn faster and produce better results every single time. Its impossible to sell politically or socially, but we've always known this. People differ in ability, people differ in general. Thats why we have more than one "thing" that you can be good at.

[Anonymous No.4744350]

>>4744331
>There are people who can analyze their mistakes and learn / progress from them in a couple drawings, while others will repeat the same mistakes on the next 1000 drawings.
isnt that exactly what talent is

[Anonymous No.4744358]

>>4744208
What roastie? are you referring to the added eye things? I just though anime people always added dramalama things like that & never thought any more about it.

[Anonymous No.4744359]

>>4744285
Jesus

[Anonymous No.4744365]

>>4744324
No wonder people are improving faster than you anon.

[Anonymous No.4744390]

>>4744272
>>4744283
Damn no wonder you suck. You just don’t know how to study and apply yourself.

[Anonymous No.4744417]

>>4744390
Neither do you retard, pyw

[Anonymous No.4744443]

>>4744307
no, they're just smarter than you. not more talented. quit being a dumbass and you can do it too

[Anonymous No.4744444]

>>4743722
this applies to SOUL fags as well. this is what ive been trying to tell you retards

[Anonymous No.4744446]

>>4744365
Post your apple

[Anonymous No.4744448]

>>4744446
not him but

[Anonymous No.4744469]

>>4744285
>only one and a half hour a day
that's barely a warm up lol

[Anonymous No.4744477]

>>4744337
This
Everyone is different, that's why we have different types of art, music, books, cultures, etc. The world would be pretty boring if we were all the same. I don't know why people get so upset when the subject of talent is brought up. It's just a fact of life.

[Anonymous No.4744478]

>>4743722
>the thing we label talent isn't a single ability. It is a complex mixture of motive, curiosity, intelligence, sensitivity, good teaching, perseverance, timing, sheer luck, and countless other things
>intelligence, sensitivity
there you go, this is what talent means.
>if any part is genetic (...) that part isn't the sole determining factor
and note that he does not claim that this part is unnecessary, only that it isn't a sufficient condition for success in itself.

[Anonymous No.4744498]

>>4744443
>you can just decide to to be smarter if you want to

[Anonymous No.4744504]

>>4744498
You can actually. Just study and learn to apply yourself, retard.

[Anonymous No.4744583]

>>4744504
pyw

[Anonymous No.4744722]

>>4744498
it's called studying, faggot

[Anonymous No.4744751]

>>4744272
>>4744283
You're right anon, it's true! Talent is real! and you don't have any... but I sure do! hee hee hee... Guess I'll just go on and succeed like the based GMI talented artist I am, while you can just sit here and seethe forever! I love knowing there are so many untalented people around to cull the competition for me. Please, untalented anon, you are so untalented, and I know you are so untalented so please, I beg you, just fucking shut up and quit and stop whining already so all us talented folk can get on with our business pretending to crab at each other, without having to read your stupid, un-talented posts. You've got just as much talent with your posting as you do your drawing. I don't want to see any more talentless scum bitch and moan about how pathetic they are. Go do something else, talentlet

[Anonymous No.4744767]

>>4744751
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.4744780]

>>4744498
Yes

[Anonymous No.4744787]

>>4744751
this is actually a good point. why do people who believe talent is everything (and also believe they don't have any) persist in posting? just recognize that you're worthless by your own infallible metric and fuck off of /ic/

[Anonymous No.4744789]

>>4744787
>he thinks this board is for learning to draw and not whining and bitching about drawing

reality check bucko

[Anonymous No.4744794]

>>4744787
>he doesn’t know that this is a venting board

[Anonymous No.4744796]

They only people who believe that talent isn't real are talented people trying to sell you something and untalented people stupid and desperate enough to believe them

[Anonymous No.4744797]

>>4744751
for future uses

[Anonymous No.4744799]

>>4744787
Because they want to drag others down to their own miserable level.

[Anonymous No.4744805]

>>4744285
i'm /beg/ but this really doesn't seem all that bad? definitely not great but could be worse
>>4744307
honestly i always thought i was one of those "bad at math" people but it turns out i just never could pay attention in class and therefore had no idea what i was doing. i got my first a in a college math course after getting prescribed ritalin because it helped me actually stay focused and learn shit. it's a boring as fuck subject so i think it might be the same for other people. the only difference is that you solve math problems via a process which you have to actually learn rather than other subjects where you just memorize little facts

[Anonymous No.4744845]

>>4744337
It isn't important and it's already explained why

>completely undetectable, in fact only applied retroactively to explain achievements
>A part of a whole constellation of factors
>Not something you control, making it useless to consider

>>4744805
It isn't, but I'm doubtful of the "1.5 hours everyday" only because we tend to overestimate how much time we spend actually focused.

> but it turns out i just never could pay attention in class and therefore had no idea what i was doing. i got my first a in a college math course after getting prescribed ritalin because it helped me actually stay focused and learn shit.

Like that.

Also another factor to consider, working alone with no input or guidance is really going to throttle your progress in the beginning. Can you be completely self taught, of course but you're reinventing the wheel while someone else could have been in art classes since they were 8 and spent the next 10 years gaining mileage and having teachers correct mistakes in real time.

Even with an objective measure of talent that you could detect from birth, there's a lot more factors to consider.

[Anonymous No.4744852]

>>4744444
soulless post

[Anonymous No.4744864]

>>4743722
so talent is real but it's not everything. was this not what everyone knew already?

[Anonymous No.4744884]

>>4744272
I actually have talent but Im really lazy so I don't draw but when I do I feel like I could surpass most of ngmis here doing what their live for decades and twns of thousands of hours in like 1 year and 1 hour every day

[Anonymous No.4744891]

>>4744864
>not everything
absolutely true talent only determine 95% of success.

[Anonymous No.4744897]

>>4743722
>If talent is not real then why only less than 1% of people all applying the same amount of effort make it in the long run?

[Anonymous No.4744902]

>>4744358
>ALLA PRIMA

[Anonymous No.4744903]

>>4743722
based. richard schmid is the last living master.

[Anonymous No.4744909]

>>4744845
The latter two points are true, but that doesnt whatsoever mean talent is unimportant, its the sole most influential factor of how fast someone will learn. The first point is bullshit for the same reason, talented people will learn far faster, so its not undetectable.

Think of it like this instead. Whats more likely, A: that our fundamental knowledge of differences between people and the resulting establishment of specialist schools for gifted children (for example) is all erroneous, or B: A sympathetic influential artist is telling people what they want to hear either for business reasons or solely out of feelgood compassion?

[Anonymous No.4744910]

>tfw I got talent
feels good

[Anonymous No.4744911]

>>4744897
>who are you quoting

[Anonymous No.4744934]

>>4744909
>the latter two are true
>the sole most influential factor

First you admit that the "constellation for success" is in fact a true and real thing, and then you backtrack immediately and say talent is the sole factor for success. Which is it? This shows you don't know what you're saying.

>A: that our fundamental knowledge of differences between people and the resulting establishment of specialist schools for gifted children (for example) is all erroneous

So because schools try to find talent means they have all the answers? No. If schools had all the answers, we'd be living in a utopia ran purely by academics - a rule by the intelligentsia class. Is that what you wish for? Psychologically speaking, much of art is rooted in the realm of chaos and of the unconscious, and to say that artistic talent can in fact rise spontaneously from the most outward parts of the controls of these "schools" is in fact a very truthful proposition.

[Anonymous No.4744945]

>>4744909
>>4744934
And by the way, that same logic you proposed in (B) applies to the schools you rise up as the pinnacle of knowledge, ironically. That is, you give the schools (who want to make money as well) a pass to your logic and instead beat down on the private and humble individual who wants to learn purely off passion by himself. This is the ultimate reason why talent crabs are disgusting individuals.

>Talent is a constellation of prospects for the individual
>pls gibs money for our schools we figured out the constellation! we know what talent is! all our students are talented! yes! we know! we figured out the equation! ALSO GIBS ME THOSE TAX EXEMPTIONS TOO N SHIT

[Anonymous No.4745014]

>>4744934
I didnt say it was the sole factor for success. I said it was the most influential.

Yes, the constellation of success does exist. No, that doesnt contradict the highlighting of talent as the most important factor.

No, Im not giving those schools a pass in shit, Im simply stating a fact, which is that children can be identified who have "superior" cognitive capabilities. Sure, the schools may be opportunistic hawks, but thats irrelevant to my point.

The world isnt fair. You can be as hardworking as you want, if you dont have the cognitive disposition to back it up, you will be slower at learning X skill than someone with a natural proclivity to it. Humans are not blank slates. As much as people want it to be so, nature does not share our fantasy of an egalitarian reality.

[Anonymous No.4745088]

>>4745014
>The world isnt fair. You can be as hardworking as you want, if you dont have the cognitive disposition to back it up, you will be slower at learning X skill than someone with a natural proclivity to it. Humans are not blank slates. As much as people want it to be so, nature does not share our fantasy of an egalitarian reality.
/thread

[Anonymous No.4745094]

>>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.

[Anonymous No.4745112]

how do you explain people who make blatantly ugly art for years without improving, yet dont seem to be mentally handicapped judging from their writing? i mean grossly disfigured characters and kindergarden tier coloring.

do they not realize

[Anonymous No.4745135]

>>4745112
Comfort zone is one hell of a drug

[Anonymous No.4745138]

>>4744469
Not everybody is a neet who can be on 4chan all day

[Anonymous No.4745139]

>>4745112
Do they not realize what? That they're not talented? Who are you to say who is talented, even toward yourself? How do you know, that in your hypothetical example, that the hypothetical individual is not just once piece of advice away from the artist within to "click" open? Maybe he's just the 90 out of every 100 aspiring artists that form is just what is revealed by light, and that once he starts paying meticulous attention to his value, his art would explode with magnificence? Or, maybe he can listen to crabs like you are never make it.

There is only ONE thing in this world which determines who is talented and who is not, and that thing is history. I am in agreement with Schmid, (who might be a better artist than any of you here), in that talent can only be established AFTER the fact, because it is far too complicated a being to know and understand until after it has passed. But my point will die in short time and this board will continue to cry about a lack of talent when they themselves have no idea who the lady talent is exactly.

[Anonymous No.4745151]

>>4745138
wagie wagie back in cagie

[Anonymous No.4745164]

>>4745139
What an autstic post, if your art looks like trash(which is easily assessable and objective) and you've been practicing for a long time then you have no talent, it's that simple

[Anonymous No.4745177]

>>4745164
If an individual's art looks like trash and they've been practicing for a long time, then they've been doing the same mistake, or a conglomeration of mistakes, for a long time. No more no less. If every art teacher out there thought like you, no one could be taught. Plus, ask every art teacher about difficult students who were not mentally retarded - they always found improvement eventually, aside from the individual himself giving up. And anyone can give up for any reason. But for you to have the autistic audacity to reserve the authority within yourself and by yourself to claim who has objective talent and who does not is the greatest sign of stupidity rooted in egotism. You cannot scientifically define what talent is and you will never know her.

[Anonymous No.4745222]

>>4745094
Sorry pal, the data is in. It never meant you had to like it. Just cope with it however you want, be dig pointlessly deep in my school example or go on about crabs in a tangent, I dont give a shit about any of that. People have natural talent.

[Anonymous No.4745250]

>>4745222
>the data is in
Your vagueness betrays you. So you're the scientific one, not me? The human brain, the center of how we understand the things we do, is plastic and adapts through time and through what we do. We know so little about it, yet you and your crab friends insist incessantly to be the arbiters who objectively determine where you can find talent. Nonsense. You are crabs. Show me your data that will tell me and others otherwise. Go ahead, because a quick google search tells me that the key to "innate artistic ability" is located in the brain, a mysterious mass which to this day, in the year of our lord, 2020, we still do not fully understand. But do go on and tell me that you can objectively locate "talent".

[Anonymous No.4745287]

>>4745250
The worst part is, you know Im right. Its cringey. Dont go so low as to go with the whole "but we know nothing about our brains" to try and argue that people dont differ in natural proclivity.

[Anonymous No.4745296]

>>4744897
I think talent is real and has an effect, but imagine saying something as simple minded as this.

That 1% is just the number of people the market will support vs the number of people trying to make it. It's no measure of talent. If 90% of people stop trying to make it, giving a 10% success rate, that doesn't make those successes less talented. If the market collapses by 90%, giving a 0.1% success rate, that doesn't make those successes more talented.

Also, you're assuming that talent is 100% equivalent to making it, that there aren't a million other factors, and that people all put in the same effort.

[Anonymous No.4745298]

>>4745250
And im not this crablord you keep alluding to. I think everyone should try their best to become better at whatever they do, and I fully encourage it. I want everyone to excel. Its no fun being bad at something (unless you dont care, which case more the power to you). But to go as far as to pretend there arent people who can learn art faster due to the right wiring is just silly to me. Its counter intuitive. I can see the compassionate side of the argument but its just wrong.

And yes, I said right wiring, and yes, I know you'll kvetch about being vague, and yes, theres a lot we dont know about the brain, but you can see quite a bit of how it works just by observing people. Go speak to literally any teacher or instructor and they will tell you the truth, which is that some kids just happen to pick stuff up faster.

[Anonymous No.4745311]

>>4745094
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but for fuck's sake, they're astronomers not astrologists.

[Anonymous No.4745317]

>>4745287
You know what's ironic? I probably know more about the brain than you do. I study psychology as a hobby. Jung and whatnot. There is definitely personalities more geared toward art, but since when did talent crabs equate artistic talent with artistic personality? They didn't, and that's where the irony lies: I could argue against myself far better than you could. You could have had me in a box if you successfully equated personality with talent, along with other psychological factors. But you didn't. But that also falls in line with my main point, that talent crabs don't know what they're talking about. (And even if you made an argument on personality, there is plenty of evidence that personality itself is very mysterious, e.g. Jung's the Shadow and historical evidence of patients undergoing massive personality changes whether by therapy, accident, etc.)

>>4745298
Go back to my posts and tell me where I denied that people pick up skills faster than others. But the act of picking up a skill faster than someone else does not define talent. Talent is far broader than that. Therefore, just because you can prove that an individual "picks up" far better than another individual, doesn't mean that that individual is more talented. They are not mutual. Artists quit all the time only to be exceeded by those who persist. Artists burn out. Prove to me that the RATE OF LEARNING is equivalent to TALENT, and NO more, and that the RATE OF LEARNING is NOT plastic, and then I might think it over.

[Anonymous No.4745318]

>>4743722
>Reading psicological stuff instead of drawing
>Not understanding that talent is a meme
that's why you don't make any progress in art

[Anonymous No.4745321]

>>4744285
Improvement is the result of a conscious and intentional effort to learn, not some magical quality that accumulates whenever someone has a pencil in their hand.

[Anonymous No.4745322]

>>4745318
>talent is a meme
t. retard

[Anonymous No.4745337]

Is talent just autism?

[Anonymous No.4745346]

>>4745337
as someone on spectrum, ill tell you this

as good as it is to be obsseive and grind without burnout or very ltitle of it, it becomes useless unless you actual try to improve, use the right learning methods, analyze and correct yourself ya know,

mindless obsession wont get you anywhere without the normal learning process

a good example of what im saying is that guy on artstation with the weird portraits

obssesive but no conciouss effort to learn

[Anonymous No.4745360]

>>4745317
>I probably know more about the brain than you do. I study psychology as a hobby.
right...
and reading webmd articles 24/7 is equivalent to attending medical school

[Anonymous No.4745377]

>>4745360
Just like those facebook moms reading one article about vaccines.

[Anonymous No.4745392]

>>4745317
I have an MA in Psychology actually, not that thats important to what im saying.

Now, I could be as autistic as you and go off about the irony of demanding empirical proof while using a mainframe of thought as loosely scientific as the works of Jung or Freud, but I wont.
And yes, creative folks tend to have similar temperaments, this is basic.

Im not going down a rabbit hole of definitions of talent. The intuitive definition, which you will also find if you look it up, is that talent is the native aptitude for skills and the ability to learn these skills quickly. Now if you disagree with the definition, I respect that, but you must also respect that I will therefore not bother discussing it with you.

[Anonymous No.4745964]

>>4744324
where do you suppose people learn about texture, light, and shape? i guess we all gotta draw more floaty loomis heads before daring to comprehend a fucking apple

[Anonymous No.4745975]

>>4744309
you realize they study by going to anatomy labs where they cut up dead corpses right? they're doing their equivalent of "drawing from life" every step along the way while combining it with other forms of learning

[Anonymous No.4745978]

>>4744350
its called not being lazy anon

[Anonymous No.4746041]

>>4745337
This guy constantly gets posted in these threads but looking closely at his line work and some of the perspective of the buildings shows he's /beg/. Now if he trained he could be an art legend.

[Anonymous No.4746066]

>>4745360
Really, the way you argue is what tells me I know more than you do. And if the argument was over which fast food chains were the best, I'd still say I know that I know more than you, because you're a stupid little shit.

>>4745392
Yeah, native aptitude - native to what? The brain. Is the brain plastic? Yes. End of the story. Take a fat douche like this guy >>4745360 make him run a thousand miles and over time he'll be as limber as a ballerina. Your brain can do the same. This isn't IQ, (which I've read also changes throughout time) it's artistic ability, and they are two different things, as I'm sure someone with a master's would agree with. Shame you wouldn't discuss because I'm technically not disagreeing with your definition, after all who am I to disagree? I ain't the psychologist.

[Anonymous No.4746068]

>>4745250
>more gray matter
so we are autistic

[Anonymous No.4746166]

>>4744324
>Properly rendering an apple
I think that's where you are missing the point of still lives. The point is to learn, it doesn't matter if you don't render "properly". You do it, you take note of what you got wrong and right and draw another apple. Of course you won't properly render anything with your first study.

[Anonymous No.4746173]

>>4744337
If you have two people that are just starting to draw, and they do the same course but one is better, that's not really a guarantee that the gap between the two will remain constant forever. That's the problem with the idea of talent, if you take the second person and tell him, based on that first course and the person he got paired with, that he is less talented or he has no talent whatsoever, he would just give up easily. But in reality, you can't quantify the amount of talent of every person, not at least for art. The less talented guy could reach the other guy's level, even if he's slower, or maybe after another course when they aren't begginers anymore, the second guy turns out to be better. But if you start out by pointing that he has no talent, that's a self fullfilling prophecy, and that's why it's bad, not because talent doesn't exist.
Also, you can't really measure talent for art. You can do it in sports, where you can measure speed or strenght, or you can have a match and see who wins (and even then, the better player would win more on average, but not always), but definitely not in art.

[Anonymous No.4746197]

>>4746041
Isn't he drawing that based entirely off of memory or something? Cause if it is the guy that drawn cities purely off of memory, then that's still pretty impressive, especially with how large scale that is. Idk maybe I have shit standards/taste, but he would most definitely be a legend if he refines it.

[Anonymous No.4746301]

Is talent quantifiable? It’s talked about like gravity but I have never seen any attempt to measure it.

[Anonymous No.4746359]

>>4746173
Thats true, and I did highlight that for teaching purposes you absolutely have to get the idea of talent out of your pupils head. All Im saying is is that its an incredibly important factor in how fast people will learn the skill.

And yeah its probably possible for the gap of performance speed to close between individuals, but once you control for conscientiousness itll become far less common. Especially as IQ begins to crystallize in age.

[Anonymous No.4746925]

>>4744444
Nice quints. Soul is only a /ic/ buzzword for general appeal and I don't know why people keep spamming it.

[Anonymous No.4747386]

>>4746301
No, but half of /ic/ will tell you that it's as observable as gravity is and THEY'LL know when they see it, because they are the genius arbiters blessed by God, who were sent down to this world to yell "NGMI NO TALENT WHY BOTHER" down from their mountaintops, claws poised forever toward the air, (some even with master's degrees lodged between them >>4745392), their shelled faces tilting down toward the nonbelievers. And I tell you, if gravity is measured by the masses and distance between two objects, then talent is measured by the masses and distance between a crab's gut and his large and stubby toes, because of course, his own talent, he will claim, is to be the greatest of all the crabs and of all the laymen.

[Anonymous No.4749710]

>>4745321
This reminds me of when I was trying to learn my German vocabulary as a teenager and just mindlessly copied the list 10 times, thinking I'd somehow learn from it. Obviously what I learned from it wasn't my vocabulary.

Learning takes effort, feedback and conscious analysis of your work. It takes time to put thought into your work and try to improve it. You have to apply yourself and put a lot of time and work into every drawing, not just quick doodle and expect to get better.

I think what happened here is that he learned a lot, but to take perspective as an example you still have to draw perspective boxes to draw the character. It's not because you drew 500 bananas in perspective that you are going to miraculously get the perspective spot on when drawing something else if you don't do the whole process. It's by drawing the boxes for every character 500 times that eventually you do it well and fast.

[Anonymous No.4749783]

>the very same people who cry about talent are neets who can literally dedicate 10 hours a day to drawing on their shitty tablet with no repercussions whatsoever on their daily life

[Anonymous No.4749927]

>>4744285
Those landscape paintings are pretty good, but they’re pretty bad at figure drawing. I don’t know what they’re doing wrong to not improve with human subjects.

[Anonymous No.4749955]

>>4744309
Imagine never attempting to draw humans or working on personal projects because your Loomis heads aren’t perfect enough lol.

Art isn’t surgery. You’re free to experiment and learn at the same time. You will never have fundies down 100%, even pros are still improving their fundies. Don’t give yourself the excuse that you have to have a very good grasp on anatomy before you attempt figure drawing.
Stop lying to yourself and get out of your comfort zone. You will fail but the more you practice the sooner you’ll improve.

[Anonymous No.4750070]

Talent isn't re-

[Anonymous No.4750122]

>>4743722
Alla Prima sounds like a huge dolt. A vast majority of great artists either have one or two parents that are also great. The only point made here is that people assume they're bad before they really try. He could be bullshitting just to prevent using the objective reality of talent for people to use as yet another excuse though.

[imanidiot No.4750268]

>>4750070
I would say that being born with talent is like being born into a rich or an at the least well-off family. Sure you got a step-up from other people, but if you don't take advantage of that wealth to advance your own future then you'll rot amongst the rest of the working class(like someone with talent not drawing), and then even if you don't have the step up then if you put in the effort along with the decison making capabilities all you will be doing is climbing the ladder and find your success. Thats literally all it is. Then there's the exceptions who are just born with insane amounts. But thats why they are exceptions.

[Anonymous No.4750281]

>>4750122
>Alla Prima sounds like a huge dolt
>Alla Prima

[Anonymous No.4750729]

>>4746068
always have been

[Anonymous No.4750749]

>>4749955
except that when i draw those personal projects, everybody on /ic/ shit on me and want me to go back to grind loomis and fundies...

[Anonymous No.4750774]

>>4744751

[Anonymous No.4750791]

>>4746301
No because nobody even knows what it ACTUALLY is and how to distinguish it from other things like for example just plain luck. You could use a very very broad definition and consider talent any trait or set of traits that make it easier to learn intuitively and also internalize/replicate what you've learned efficiently and then try and measure that. But at that point youre dealing with such a general definition of talent that it stops being something innate and becomes a combo of things anyone can understand and learn to do.

[Anonymous No.4750829]

>>4744285
This is what an endless grinding of fundies does to you. It kills your souls and drains any bit of fun you could have had drawing.
I almost fell for the same trap.

[Anonymous No.4750852]

>>4750122
What are you talking about dumb dumb

[Anonymous No.4750859]

>>4744208
Im OP and im a man bro. Watch your mouth mate.

[Anonymous No.4750887]

>>4750774
Which anime is that from?

[Anonymous No.4750984]

>>4750859
I think he's referring to the author, "Alla Prima".

[Anonymous No.4751006]

>>4744285
This guy just didn't practice drawing from imagination enough.

[Anonymous No.4751010]

>>4750829
No it’s because he drew 1.5 hours a day for 5 years. assuming he never missed a day and was completely focused on drawing for those 1.5 hours(which it was most likely 30-45mins) he has 2,737 hours in art which gives him an average of 547 hours a year a most. There are around 8755 hours in one year so this guy is only 31% of the way through his first art year. If we put this into months he’s really only been drawing for the equivalent of about 3 months over a span of 5 years or 18 days a years. What people don’t understand is just drawing an hour and a half day will not give them results in 5 years but in fact 12 years If we assume it takes a year worth of hours to get competent at something. You should be actively be practicing drawing for ideally 5-6 hours a day If you want to see improvement within 5-4 years and no watching a tutorial or reading about drawing doesn’t contribute to this total only the act of drawing does. If you want to quit art because you’re bad that’s okay just know its not because you’re not talented you just got filtered by the easiest part putting in the time. Anyone blaming a lack of talent for their crappy art is lying to themselves. Talent is just meme to comfort the lazy.

[Anonymous No.4751016]

>>4751010
>Talent person draw well without spending as much time
>Talent is not real
>Talentless person draw bad after spending time
>You're not talentless, you just need to grind more
k

[Anonymous No.4751031]

>>4751016
Put in the work or get filtered retard

[Anonymous No.4751037]

>>4751031
Yes i will.
Now it's your turn to admit that talent exists.
And it doesn't only affect the starting point.
It affects how fast someone learn drawing, and how far can someone go, as in their maximum limits are further than other talentless person can ever reach.

[Anonymous No.4751054]

>>4751010
Is that how you cope with your lack of talent? lmao

[Anonymous No.4751057]

>>4746301
>never seen any attempt to measure it
It's measured constantly. Look at anything competitive at the peak levels. It can be observed at any level of competition, but I chose to focus on the top couple percent because effort can be eliminated from the equation. In that small percentile everyone lives and breathes solely to improve yet an individual will come along and dwarf the completion. Name anything and someones name is forever attached to it because they were talented. Talent is measured every time someone runs faster jumps higher or even learns to draw faster and better than the competition. So stop bitching about things you cant change and get back to drawing.

[Anonymous No.4751059]

>>4751037
Talent doesn’t exist. What you see as talent is just someone who has put in more hours actively into their craft. If you considering having an average iq a talent then I could see where you are coming from. But other then that the only limits a person have is relative to how far they push themselves

[Anonymous No.4751076]

>>4751059
cope harder talentlet

[Anonymous No.4751083]

>>4743722

cope

[Anonymous No.4751097]

>>4751076
I speak only truth. Anyone can hear the truth few choose to listen. I can scale every wall thrown in front of me because I know it only takes time with the Basic equipment you on the other hand believe a helicopter is needed because you are lazy.

[Anonymous No.4751109]

>>4751057
>Implying I don't draw
>Comparing sports to drawing

Drawing talent, such as it is, isn't a measure like height, bench press, or 40 yard dash nor is there an observable upper limit based on weight and build.

Nor does it seem like physical talent is transferable between different competitions. How many athletes have been successful in multiple sports?

No one has quantified talent, as in there's no talent unit (or even definition of what that would be) that is predictive of how well someone will do at X task and the fact that it can only be observed after the fact makes me think it doesn't exist in a meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.4751165]

>>4751097
You will spend hours climbing that wall with all your fancy gear whereas talentchad will do that in minutes with his bare hands. Talent is objectively real, stop deluding yourself.

[Anonymous No.4751170]

>>4751165
So what

[Anonymous No.4751174]

>>4751165
Quit drawing, you’re too retarded for it anyway.

[Anonymous No.4751178]

>>4751174
>>4751170
I will make it because I'm talented whereas you won't.

[Anonymous No.4751192]

>>4751174
Cope talentlet

[Anonymous No.4751210]

>>4751192
>>4751178
You shouldn’t lie about having talent, anons. Just quit now before you post in the vent thread everyday.

[Anonymous No.4751225]

Arguing about the "existence" of talent is circular reasoning. People who learn something quickly and become proficient at it faster than others are called "talented," and they are used as evidence that something intangible called "talent" exists that gives them those traits. But there is nothing to say that what we call "talent" is innate or inexplicable. It's just a word we use to describe something we can't otherwise explain with the knowledge we possess. That doesn't mean a better explanation doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.4751235]

>>4751210
projecting much, talentlet?

[Anonymous No.4751247]

>>4750984
Alla Prima isn't the author you fucking beg, it refers to the wet on wet technique. The author is Richard Schmid

[Anonymous No.4751249]

>>4751225
you can predict peoples life outcomes with a pretty decent success rate just by measuring their IQ and personality traits pretty early on. it isn't anything absolute, but people absolutely do have innate qualities that determine what they are and aren't capable of.

[Anonymous No.4751254]

>>4751247
that's a pseudonym she used so the art world would take her seriously, you uncultured, sexist pig.

[Anonymous No.4751288]

>>4743722
Ok, I'll bite.
>>4751225
What do you mean that talent isn't innate, inexplicable, or even tangible when recognizing that some people become proficient much faster than others? The very fact that we can recognize that others may learn a particular subject faster than other people means that they are indeed "talented", or so you would say. If we can see the results of these people's efforts in comparison to those who've struggled just as much and haven't reaped results, isn't the success of the superior tangible evidence of talent. You're not proving talent doesn't exist you're just simply trying to change the definition when you've already clearly recognized those superior to you. With your conditions, almost every noun with a definition is circular reasoning because it exists in real life, a word is created to define its characteristics, and then those characteristics are use to label it again in life. In the case than your using it, its worthless. If you can give a better explanation, please do.

[Anonymous No.4751355]

>>4751288
I'm saying that talent isn't the source of superior ability, it's a synonym. You can't say that someone demonstrates superior ability BECAUSE they have talent, because talent IS superior ability. You can define talent as INNATE superior ability, but saying something is innate isn't an explanation for why it's there either, it's just tantamount to saying "we don't really know the reason," which means you can't say for sure whether it's innate or not either.

Speaking of talent as if it were a definite "thing," like a force of nature, rather than a set of observable traits, seems to me almost superstitious. It's like saying someone "has a short temper" because they get angry quickly, and then pointing to that and saying there's something called a "temper" that determines how easily agitated someone is.

[Anonymous No.4751541]

>>4751010
That's the most autistic shit I've ever read here.

[Anonymous No.4751992]

Representative art is a whole array of processes and skills, both in the mind (recontextualising and understanding the subject) and the body. It's pretty meaningless to discuss 'artistic talent' as if there's an underlying commonality between all of these things, because I'm not convinced there is. All it does is force an ignorance of specific shortfalls in your work or the work of others.

Ie. the artist in the Deviantart screenshot: they need to work on gathering rhythm and interest in their lines and manipulating pencil to create a more gradual gradient - this could be done just with isolated practice, maybe quick gestural drawings in a public place and simple exercises.
They seem to be locked in a sort of quasi-anime symbol drawing fiasco (understandable on deviantart) and could do with some focused observational practice (preferably from life) instead of these exercises that purely LOOK academic and are clearly copied without being explained properly beforehand.
I'm impressed by the 3 full-body life drawings in the bottom right - they convince me that there is observational skill there and that they are able to learn (from other artists or from life) about colour, texture and tone.
If you can make a comparison between yourself and another artist then you should also be able to pick out definite areas in which they succeed or fail, and learn from them. + if you're smart and sensitive enough to understand internet memes, you also have the ability to develop and apply this pattern-spotting/analysis to your own work.
Talent is a concept held only by people who currently suck. I'm sure you can be inherently more disposed to have good fine motor skills, but this can also be practiced and doesn't necessarily make or break an artist.
Also this thread is missing social factors, ie. if you were exposed to a lot of significant art growing up then it might have impacted on you and given you a sense of colour/composition that seems inherent

[Anonymous No.4752753]

>>4751992
>talent is a concept held by people who currently suck
I agree as I suck. I used to think talent wasn't real and that only hard work was real. Few years down the line and I realize talent is very well real and I have none of it (and that I might have anti talent). Despite my best attempts and constant re-evaluating, practicing and experimenting im incredibly shit and I hate myself for it every single day.

[Anonymous No.4752761]

>>4751992
This basically, why do you think so many non-artist always use talent as a compliment? Because shit like this, using talent as an indicator for will never end.

[Anonymous No.4752763]

>>4752761
indicator for skill*
Fuck

[Anonymous No.4753076]

>>4752753
why do you think you are bad?

[Anonymous No.4753094]

>>4752753
>Now there's anti talent

I'm not going to psychoanalyze you, but maybe the fact you hate your self is impeding you rather than your lack of talent?

[Anonymous No.4753161]

Just draw is the advice that makes people so shit. Actually try taking something like the Vitruvian Drawing Basics. Some of you don’t know basic shit like linear perspective, triangulation, comparative measurement, anatomy, proper gripping of your art instrument, how to free hand circles other shapes, value scales and then wonder why you struggle when you try to jump into rendering fisheyed human figures. Fuck you

[Anonymous No.4753178]

>>4750749
Does anyone here force you to post every single piece of garbage study you make, you insecure cretin hungry for validation?

You are also probably the kind of brat who is too afraid to reference images for studies cause you know you would draw a picture several levels above your imagination drawings with it and won't be able to help yourself and post it on social media which makes you worry someone will call you out.

You guys all think the same it's hilarious. Grow the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.4753195]

>>4753161
>Actually try taking something like the Vitruvian Drawing Basics.
review of this?

[Anonymous No.4753326]

>>4744203
Smarter people will improve faster than you.
Harder working people will improve faster than you.
People with proper tutors will improve faster than you.
People with a better learning method will improve faster than you.
You can control 3/4 of those.

[Anonymous No.4753658]

>>4753326
uhm actually
you can control all 4 of those by killing all the people you've listed

[Anonymous No.4753665]

>>4753076
>Fail to improve on things I practice deliberately and regularly
>Im bad at every single thing. Measuring. Anatomy. Perspective. Linework. Values. Figure drawing. Color theory. Composition. Draftmanship. Drapery. You name it
>Every time I try to draw what I want I fail spectacularly but even so I try to finish pieces
>On top of everything. Im slow as hell and usually have to correct a piece several times
Only thing I have going on for me is that I draw and practice regularly using all my little free time but in the end it does me no good. By all metrics and under all considerations Im incredibly bad no matter how you slice it.

[Anonymous No.4753675]

>>4745346
How was that Finnish dude even called? I forgot.

[Anonymous No.4753677]

>>4744272
You're a nigger? Well, that's your problem.

[Anonymous No.4753719]

>>4753658
based and psychopilled