Talent vs Skill debate

[Appelsider]

So ya, i would like to know ya’lls thoughts about this topic when it comes to art!

Do you think amazing artists just have talent, or is it only because of hard work, or both?

 

[ShineCero]

I don’t think people are born with the ability to create craft. I think it’s all skilled based that anyone can achieved through learning the methods, techniques, patience, time and finally, practice. The only time that I think talent can be considered is the ability to dissect a reference, whether photo or real life, break them down and replicated faster than the average person (i.e. they can do it without training) but that can be achieved also through skill, and those with that talent can improve it through practice.

For example: there are people who practiced a single style based on an artist (like say, the Mona Lisa), that can practice that style so much, that they can easily replicated that style after intensive practice (months or years), that art critics will never noticed the difference. They weren't born with that, they learned their craft and improve through sheer determination and skills.

 

[Panich]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I agree. Talent, in my opinion is more of a trait that allows teachings to come easier to others. It's not a trait limited to one field, but say you have perfect pitch or with Shine's example, the ability to break down or easily replicate pieces of artwork by looking at it. Even people who are able to figure out extensive math equations in their heads without hesitation. [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]What may be hard for one person, could come easier to another. And that's where people see it as a "talent". [/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The misconception about talent is that if someone's good at something, people will give credit to you for being made that way. You're so talented, but they could never be able to do what you do. [/font]When really you may have been working and honing that skill for years. It may not have even come easy to you!

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]A[/font] person with "talent" is the same as someone without it. They can learn the exact same skill and be amazing at it. It may take some different steps for a "talentless" person to get it, but they will. Because they have the capacity to learn and develop it.  

And then again that's just another can of worms that can be thrown into this debate. People may be similar in how they are taught but they ultimately learn things differently. So whether or not talent is even real is irrelevant.

Cause you can quite literally learn anything you put your mind to if you work at it hard enough.

 

[ShineCero]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I agree. Talent, in my opinion is more of a trait that allows teachings to come easier to others. It's not a trait limited to one field, but say you have perfect pitch or with Shine's example, the ability to break down or easily replicate pieces of artwork by looking at it. Even people who are able to figure out extensive math equations in their heads without hesitation. [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]What may be hard for one person, could come easier to another. And that's where people see it as a "talent". [/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The misconception about talent is that if someone's good at something, people will give credit to you for being made that way. You're so talented, but they could never be able to do what you do. [/font]When really you may have been working and honing that skill for years. It may not have even come easy to you!

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]A[/font] person with "talent" is the same as someone without it. They can learn the exact same skill and be amazing at it. It may take some different steps for a "talentless" person to get it, but they will. Because they have the capacity to learn and develop it.  

And then again that's just another can of worms that can be thrown into this debate. People may be similar in how they are taught but they ultimately learn things differently. So whether or not talent is even real is irrelevant.

Cause you can quite literally learn anything you put your mind to if you work at it hard enough.

I agreed with this completely.

The concept of talent may don’t have much notation to fall on. What people see a very skilled person, often or not, they always assumed that they were talented from the get-go. In reality, they had to practice/train just as hard as everyone else to get to that level; none of us are born with the ability to do a certain task. How people get to that level always relies on different teaching methods, which varies person to person. One can helped someone improved massively, while the other, it doesn’t do much for them.
 
:thinking: The more I think about it and the more I see your post @Panich, the more I think that talent is practically non-existence in this discussion to be frank. It all really comes down to honing your skills and different methods taking you the level you want to be in (and beyond), which varies from one to another.

 

[LoopyPanda]

To me, talent in art doesn't really refer to having a natural skill that you were born with (which in itself is a bit of a paradox since I've yet to see a baby paint a mona lisa). I believe without a doubt that some people just happen to pick up things faster than others and learn those skills faster, since no two brains are alike. You still need to put in work to develop those skills though, otherwise even the skills you have a better inclination towards will degrade overtime without refreshers.

Child prodigies are called that because most of the time they put all of their energy into learning whatever skill it is-- their brains are sponges that can absorb plenty of information in short amount of time under ideal learning conditions (and provided they have interest invested). But as we get older, that spongy quality of our brains isn't as powerful... and consciously putting more effort than before makes some feel inferior for it

I think regardless of how easily your brain understands certain concepts more than others, some degree of consistent effort is required to develop them to a level laypeople consider "talented". Some people rightfully may take offense to the label because it reduces us down to our skill at face-value and lacks the context of how many years we spent working to get there.

It's easy to feel discouraged comparing ourselves to e-artists our own age who have better skills than we do, but it doesn't define anyone's worth as an artist because it isn't a race. Envy can be a driving force to improve, yes, but just as quickly, it can dig you into a hole you'll find hard to crawl out of. Especially because it's impossible to know an online stranger's entire life-- there's no point in comparing yourself to someone else who has a totally different set of cards than you.
Sometimes all you need is to look at your old art to see how far you've improved.  But working hard does NOT mean "do nothing but art until 5 am every day". Mental and physical health are huge factors. If you don't take care of yourself with breaks and sleep, your body WILL make you. And it's not fun.