[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

View post   
File: 36 KB, 735x332, michelangelos-creation-of-adam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5199495 No.5199495 [Reply] [Original]

Why do so many people deny that talent exists? You don't really see this anywhere else.

>"Some people are naturally smarter and better at math"
Yep, okay
>"Some people are naturally more athletic and better at sports"
Yep, okay
>Some people are naturally better at art"
NO TALENT ISN'T REAL ANYONE CAN BECOME A PRO IF THEY JUST GRIND LOOMIS ENOUGH

What is it about art that causes this?

>> No.5199496

>>5199495
>Some people are naturally smarter and better at math
ive never heard this one, it seems retarded

>> No.5199518

>>5199496
Agreed, there are only lazy and not lazy people. You get up, learn math each day, improve. You get up, do your favorite sport each day, you improve. The lazy one? Does not improve. Simple as.

>> No.5199538

>>5199496
People do vary quite a bit in many aspects. Whether it's intelligence, height, attractiveness, sports, income, etc. there's variance. This variance is not entirely (or in many of these, even mostly) due to hard work. That doesn't mean you can't still value yourself for your strengths and work to improve yourself regardless. Compare yourself to yourself, you can't reasonably expect that if you work hard you'll be the next Einstein, Loomis, Michael Jordan, or whatever.

>> No.5199634

None of those are true. The only one that can remotely work is genes for aestheticism such as someone born with longer legs is just simply going be able to cover more distance easier. Talent isn't real, stop holding yourself back and actually work on something for once.

>> No.5199635

>>5199495
>Yep, okay

people only say that because they don't give a shit enough to argue it.

>> No.5199641

Same reason people deny some people just aren’t smart enough to learn math, it makes them uncomfortable.
That, or they have a personal investment in you not considering talent, whether it’s because they want you to keep paying them, it’s just annoying or they are afraid they are not cut out for it.
Watts is the best about it
>talent doesn’t matter, nobody’s born knowing how to paint
>I was born within a gifted father... yeah, there’s something in genetics
>20 minutes later
>I can see value in colors, so I never understood people who can’t
>just keep working on it idk
>sometimes you just get people who can’t learn and you’re like... wow
>and you just know they will never get it
>but treat those people with compassion, and if you’re a teacher, don’t let them get to you, just do the best you can
>all this in span of a single lesson
the man is a gold mine

>> No.5199643

Why the same threads all the time?

>> No.5199644

What are art talent tards so retarded that they stick around whine about something they admit they have no chance with.

>Man, Im not good at math. I better do something else.
>Man, Im not a good athlete, I better do something else.
>Man, Im not good at art.
WAAA!! ITS NOT MY FAULT!! I WANSN'T BORN WITH TALENT. TALENT IS REAL!! ASIAN GENES. LIGAMENT!! THE SPARK!!

What is it about art that causes this?

>> No.5199647

Talent

>> No.5199648

>>5199644
I am good at all of those, that’s how I know genetic predisposition is real.

>> No.5199650

>>5199644
I think it's because most people underestimate the skill required to do art. When you think of being an athlete or doing the math you think man it must take a lot of strength or smarts I just don't have to do that. But what does it take to do art? who knows, you are just drawing pictures in a chair, how hard can that be. Then you try and do it and now you have nothing but to complain about talent

>> No.5199651

>>5199538
>>5199641
>>5199644
>>5199650
why are you guys all engaging in an obvious and repetitve bait thread? What do you get out of typing these long replies up? The discussion never changes. Nothing new is ever added. Are you guys all literally new to /ic/?

>> No.5199655

>>5199651
>noooooo stop discussing things I don’t like
close the thread and fuck off, faggot

>> No.5199656

>>5199655
It's TALENT. People have been talking about that for centuries! The OP itself is boring af, stuff everybody's seen a million times. Are you clinically retarded?

>> No.5199685

Not denying that talent exists, but I can see why some people think that the focus on it is unhelpful. One, people will take any achievement and chalk it up to 'talent', which usually ignores the years of hard work that that achievement took. Two, people think that if they aren't naturally great at something they can't achieve greatness in that field. Three, people think that they aren't talented unless they are immediately successful at something, ignoring the learning process that is required, even for those with talent.

To take your math example:
1. It would be like saying that learning calculus or developing a new proof is purely the result of analytic prowess, when calculus still requires learning and proofs are labor intensive even for the smartest among us.
2. Plenty of people of normal intelligence can be skilled at math, or even contribute to the development of the field. Perhaps the most difficult and esteemed questions and topics are beyond their capabilities, but that shouldn't matter.
3. So many people think that they are simply 'bad at math' when they simply haven't put in the time and work required to be adequate at it.
The idea that some people are talented/untalented at math is to the detriment of the 80% of people who are varying degrees of intelligent and require a little effort to be competent or even skilled at math. The same goes for artistic talent.

>> No.5199686
File: 276 KB, 424x412, 1457668032553.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5199686

>>5199650
I think you're right, but I also think theres a lot more that contributes to this. I've had this idea that because art isn't respected and is seen as this "easy" thing you "fall back on" if all else fails, we get these people who are sometimes at wits end. So when they find out the "easy" thing isn't actually easy they get extremely worked up and defensive. Its SUPPOSED to be easy, right? So it must be something else. Not to mention things like low bar to entry, literally anyone can start where as a lot of other disciplines have you go though preliminary education before even attempting to specialize.

Anyone have thoughts on this or something similar? I'm not looking to argue whether its real or not, but I find the reaction a little interesting. Not going to engage with talent talk, but I'm curious if anyone has thoughts on the why this happens. I don't usually give this too much thought, but out of morbid curiosity I'll pose this here.

>> No.5199700

>>5199495
why is his peepee so small

>> No.5199706

>>5199700
Stop watching porn, that’s a normal penis.

>> No.5199707

>>5199700
cuz his muscles r so big

>> No.5199735

>>5199706
post your penis

>> No.5199754

>>5199641
Lol Watts is a clown. I agree with you though; good example.

>> No.5199755

>>5199495
The first two are true, but it's not because of talent. The relative age effect is an observed phenomenon in sports and academia, but is not really applicable to art. If you are unaware, the relative age effect is simply put
>the youngest individuals are generally disadvantaged against older individuals in the same cohort (of young children)
>because older individuals could have up to 9 months advantage of brain/muscle development over younger individuals
>the same older individuals are encouraged/continue to do well in a positive feedback loop
>younger individuals susceptible to a negative feedback loop
>over span of years can develop a large disparity in skill of academics/sports

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect
for example you can observe a bias in distribution of athlete's birthdays, usually favoring oldest individuals with birthdays just after a given cutoff date for eligibility for competition.
Not the case for art since there is no cut off. People are generally accepting of older individuals being smarter or more athletic as a result of the relative age effect, since our birthday's are out of our control. But art is not a skill that is influenced heavily by the relative age effect, because we are never encouraged to become artists in the first place as children(at least not any more than we are encouraged to pursue academia or sports). Art is self-centric

the difference is that:
you can attribute half of an academic/athlete's success to the positive environment/reinforcement they receive, from teachers/mentors/coaches, you will not see an olympian without a coach
the pursuit of art is rarely encouraged, even rarer is a mentor figure- and yet you will see many successful artists build from nothing up. You will never be a Ramanujan or Lu Xiaojun if you didn't start at an early age, but you can always become a master at art for so long as your eyes/brain/hands work.

>> No.5199761

>>5199686
It's a good point. I was afraid to start art and told myself it could wait until after I got an engineering degree because I was that afraid of failing and the difficulty of getting good. I think I always had a sober view of the difficulty of art and it helped me improve 100x faster than the average /beg/ poster.

>> No.5199769

>>5199755
>people born with higher test levels, higher hgh during puberty, more efficient cns, etc is just relative age effect guise
>I am very intelligent btw

>> No.5199794

>>5199641
Based

>> No.5199802

>>5199685
One, in art, talented people take any achievement and chalk it up to "hard work", which usually ignores the years of hard work other people took who can even work harder but ultimately fail due to no talent.

Two, If you don't have a great talent for something you cannot achieve greatness, you will always be outmatched by people who both have talent and put hard work.

Three, people are not aware that they are talented or not, and there is no easy way to find out unless you put some time into it.

Also by your flawed math analogy I can see you have never worked on the field, there is plenty of dead ends on the field who contribute nothing other than to steal grant money, real advancement on the field of mathematics is only accomplished by a select group of truly great minds. Outside of the field (and even inside, shockingly) there are plenty of people which are absolutely incapable of learning even the most basic notions the very moment it becomes somewhat abstract.

I'll try to not be harsh and just label you as naive, you probably are just yet another young neet that has never worked in a serious project with a team of brilliant people for years.

>> No.5199815

>>5199686
that is literally what the other person said

>> No.5199856

>>5199802

>One, in art, talented people take any achievement and chalk it up to "hard work", which usually ignores the years of hard work other people took who can even work harder but ultimately fail due to no talent.
These people are usually few and far between. Yes, of course there's people with no ability whatsoever, but they're at most 20% of the population. Failure is also subjective. Will everybody be able to have a massive art following, or to even live off their work? No, that's ridiculous. Are most people capable of creating art that has value, even if only to themselves? Obviously, and for a lot people, that's enough.

>Two, If you don't have a great talent for something you cannot achieve greatness, you will always be outmatched by people who both have talent and put hard work.
I never said most people can achieve greatness, that would obviously be contrary to the very meaning of greatness. I'm not talking about this in the context of competition. My issues with the idea of talent is in the context of the 80% of people not skilled to be part of competitions.

>Three, people are not aware that they are talented or not, and there is no easy way to find out unless you put some time into it.
My problem with this is that it assumes that talent is binary. In reality, skill at anything is continuous. Even within the realm of so-called 'talented' people, there are varying degrees of competence. So too with artistic skill and inherent ability. Someone with less inherent ability but a better work ethic could produce works at the same level as someone with more ability but worse ethic.

To your final point, the 80/20 rule in workplaces is moderately well supported. Not everybody can be a part of the 20% of highly productive people in a certain field. People still have passions, even if they aren't part of the elite quintile. They should be allowed to contribute any way they can, even if their contributions are modest.

>> No.5199882

>>5199856
>These people are usually few and far between.
Incorrect
>Yes, of course there's people with no ability whatsoever
Correct
>But they're at most 20% of the population.
Incorrect, stop pulling numbers out of your ass
>Failure is also subjective. Will everybody be able to have a massive art following, or to even live off their work? No, that's ridiculous. Are most people capable of creating art that has value, even if only to themselves? Obviously, and for a lot people, that's enough.
This and all your other points are just relativism cope. If you are happy in being downright mediocre (or even bad) and you find fulfillment in life when your biggest contribution might be being a drone delivering coffee to someone actually doing work I have nothing else to discuss with you, since talent being real or not really doesn't make any difference in your puny worldview.

>> No.5199891

>>5199882
Cool, so we can just claim that we're correct and be done with it?

While we're playing the ad hominem game: You seem desperate to claim superiority to others based on personal, unquantifiable markers like 'having talent'. You're desperately clinging to a personal feeling of being one of the elect few who 'has talent' or 'is destined for great things'. I suggest you discard these illusions if you ever want to succeed in life.

>> No.5199893

>>5199891
>You seem desperate to claim superiority to others based on personal, unquantifiable markers like 'having talent'. You're desperately clinging to a personal feeling of being one of the elect few who 'has talent' or 'is destined for great things'. I suggest you discard these illusions if you ever want to succeed in life.
As always, you are wrong yet again. I have no talent whatsoever and the only value I can contribute on my field comes from actual hard work, thing is I have seen plenty of people who are both talented and work as hard as me. But yeah enjoy your empty consoomer life.

>> No.5199942
File: 58 KB, 614x210, Ramanujan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5199942

>>5199496
Math is extremely reliant on talent. On the basic school level, people good at it literally do not have to try at all. Every concept is immediately grasped, sometimes intuited or discovered before being taught it. I think most people can learn to correctly answer school math questions, but understanding it is the hard part. It's the understanding that I think is dependent on talent. Anyone can memorize how to solve specific problems. But only a few can grasp it's abstract substance.

On the real level, most of math was done by just 3 people, Euler, Gauss, Riemann. Then you can list a couple more people for the rest, maybe 30 names. Even more crazy, look up people like Galois or Ramanujan. Galois, when he was 20, wrote up his work right before he died in a duel. He single handedly created group theory and Galois theory and practically the whole of abstract algebra as we know it now. He revolutionized math, at the age of fucking 20. Ramanujan is another wild case, he was a nobody in india who learned from random british math textbooks he could find. Then he blew the entire math community out of the water with his incredible insight in number theory, such as the pi formula I've attached. This formula is still the basis for modern computations of pi.

How do you explain such incredible insights and the fact that so few people in history even matter to math? To me it's obvious that's it's talent. No amount of hard work will ever let you understand math like these guys. Especially Ramanujan.

>> No.5199984

>>5199893
This only strengthens my argument. If you have 'no talent' in your field(bottom 20% in inherent skill) you've made up for it through effort, at least to extent that you're at a professional level. Sure, you won't be in the same league as someone born at a higher level, but you have been able to contribute, by your own admission.
>consoomer
C'mon dude, that's uncalled for.

>> No.5199990

>>5199942
You're missing one of the other greats of the field, Paul Erdos. Erdos achieved similar productivity to Gauss with amphetamines.