Are we born with talent?
Sometimes I despise the word “gifted”, especially when it seems that those who label themselves thus seem to be the most bitter and emotional out there. For example, I read a rant that it’s “not easy at all”. The blogger complained although being “ranked in the top 1% […] in the world”? s/he was not properly supported, instead being resented for being different rather than getting the sympathy or support other different people - comparing it to being disabled - receive. The whole blog, in fact, had a rather angry tone, because individual appeared to not be where s/he wanted to be in life. Thus I began to wonder is it partly because s/he seems to relish reminding people of their “giftedness”? Do those who are supposed to have a natural talent for something also tend to be more angry when they don’t get what they want perhaps because the as a “medium [for] creative forces” it should just come to her/him? I’m not sure.
Coincidently, I’d read a couple days earlier an article questioning creativity. Are you born with it? It began with the following blog:
The truth is, most of the hardworking people we admire in this world succeed primarily on virtues they were born with whether they want them or not. You can enhance your brain power with study, but you have to be born smart to rock the Chem Lab. You can practice your ass off to get from good to great, but if you aren’t born with the lungs and legs you’ll never be a great athlete. You can apprentice with the very best, but all great builders know that there’s a point at which the blueprints break down and you’ve just got to feel your way through a project.
[...] What I’m saying is this: as much as their diligent cultivation of God-given powers has made them legends in our time, it’s all built on the foundation of a peculiar talent that came into this world with their very fingertips. The essential draughtsman was there at the beginning. That’s the talent. And the talent is what we really admire. [...] These guys are lauded as great successes for all the hard work they put into their craft. If Joe Schmuck on the street logged just as many hours (and some Joe Schmucks do) at the same craft as these draughstmen, no one would give a hoot. Because Joe Schmuck doesn’t have it. Tim Sale has it. Man does he have it. And as much as his hardwork pays off in making him better and better, it’s still will always be the essential Tim Sale, the talent he was born with, that we love.
[...] The truth is that, at the end of the day, we love artists for their talent and you can’t earn talent. [1]
To sum it up, some people have it, and some don’t, and no matter how hard you work or train, you’ll never be on the same level as those who have the gift of talent. The more I mull it over, I believe there are some people that do have a natural aptitude for something, be it words, numbers, sports, or art. Moreover, some things we can’t control no matter how hard we train, physical prowess and beauty for example; without the right build a person can’t be a sports star nor be a supermodel. That much I agree with, but by separating them into the haves and have-nots I feel it’s belittling the hard work of the latter. For example, looking at sports, say we take two equally matched people, same height, weight, etc. One is labeled as “talented”; both reach the same goal, the latter perhaps with more difficulty, but now they are at the same place in life, same fame, same money, etc. Because the second individual was not a natural as a child does it make him any less of an athlete? By Brady’s argument, yes. "No one would give a hoot."
Now considering artistic side of things, I have met people who I’d call uncreative. They are the mental meat and potatoes people of the world, although whether they were born that way or raised that way I can’t say for certain. Perhaps they could train themselves to think creativity if they are open to the notion, but if they were open to creativity in the first place they wouldn’t be considered uncreative, yes? No? We have something of a Catch 22 here, but this brings up the question of environment. Was the person nurtured creatively? What opportunities did he have? This is a question people have asked many times before; what makes a person who they are, nature or nurture?
Often times this opportunity is financial […] Having the financial wherewithal to pursue art is a major factor in the ability to get better and develop one's artistic skills. It's difficult to grow as an artist when one is simply struggling to survive. Other times, the opportunity is more abstract. Some kids have the self-esteem to get over the tough times as they learn their particular craft and others don't. In addition, I believe strongly that some children get the right type of support at the right time to give them enough confidence to keep going. That support could come from a parent or a teacher or someone else. It could even come from within themselves with their own inherent stubbornness. Regardless, something keeps them going and they get over their inherent "terribleness" to become fantastic artists in whatever medium they choose. This is even true when it comes to sport and athletics. When you factor these two points together […] it becomes very clear that artistic opportunity is not egalitarian. [2]
Despite that, do some people still have something more when it comes to talent? There are those who no matter how much they want to be the next big artist, they lack the spark -- although more commonly I find they lack the determination; it’s easy to talk about one’s goals but harder to actually do it. Sometimes you look at someone’s work, and though its technically good it lacks that inner something, that spark of inspiration that makes a piece astounding. But is that inherent talent or the result of hard work? We say people have an eye for color or an eye for design. How does one manage to do what can be termed “sloppy elegance” whereas another’s attempt comes off as lazy? Is it a gift or the result of something much more complicated?
It’s hard not to bring up popularity when discussing talent. Just something is popular doesn’t necessarily make it good. Talent, after all, is subjective, and many a lauded artist has only been recognized posthumously.
Artists like Vincent Van Gogh, now considered legendary, could barely make a living at their art in their own lifetimes. Van Gogh in particular was close to starvation just before he'd eventually die [...] From your essay's point of view, Van Gogh's position was the same as Joe Schmuck. Very few people at the time considered he had talent at all. Or, to rephrase your own words, the popular opinion of the time would have been that "Van Gogh doesn't have it." This is, of course, utterly false. The iron is that this public opinion changed after he died. And in the approximately 100 years since he died, he is now considered an artist genius. Popularity and public opinion, when discussing art, means nothing.
To drive home my point further: The National Gallery of Canada is this country's preeminent arts gallery. Despite this, there has never been a comic book artist in its halls. Only Roy Lichtenstein even comes close. The National Gallery is considered to be the be all and end all of what's considered to be art. And yet the four artists you refer to (Dean Haspiel, John Romita, Jr., Lewis Trondheim and Tim Sale) have never ordained it's walls. By the measure of your argument, they do not have merit. Comics, from the Gallery's point of view, are clearly not art. That may change (and a number of us are working to change that), but as it stands right now that's the case.
The only point I'll add is this: to be an artist, you have to be courageous. The aesthetics of art are so broad and tastes can change so often that an artist can easily become flavour of the month. And just as quickly forgotten. It takes courage to do art. To have the courage of your conviction and do art when perhaps no one else believes in you. When it comes to art, that's the only talent there is. The courage to overcome. By conflating populism with artistic merit (or Talent or whatever word you choose to use), you are undermining the inherent nature of what art is. There is nothing God-given about art at all. There is the work. And there is courage to do the work. [2]
Some people do have an aptitude for art, but there are levels of creation, such as to be able to picture the image in our head and the ability to manipulate our chosen media to create that image. Some people, through gift or grindstone, may be able to do one but not the other. Some can do both. But many have some sort of deficiency, an area that can use improvement. Thus, having a gift doesn’t ensure success. And if you don’t recognize and work on that deficiency why should you be “loved” just because you’re a natural talent? Regardless, not having what may be called a natural born talent doesn’t exclude you from certain fields nor does it make you any less admirable.
I like Stephen King's analogy of knives when it comes to talent. Everyone is born with a knife (their talent.) But nobody is born with a sharp knife. That comes from working with that talent, getting an idea of what you want to do, where your deficiencies lie, etc. Some people have really big knives, but never sharpen them, and basically they just keep whacking until the knife breaks. And some people have small knives, but they're so ungodly sharp they'll cut through damn near anything. [3]
I think I just broke my brain.
Coincidently, I’d read a couple days earlier an article questioning creativity. Are you born with it? It began with the following blog:
The truth is, most of the hardworking people we admire in this world succeed primarily on virtues they were born with whether they want them or not. You can enhance your brain power with study, but you have to be born smart to rock the Chem Lab. You can practice your ass off to get from good to great, but if you aren’t born with the lungs and legs you’ll never be a great athlete. You can apprentice with the very best, but all great builders know that there’s a point at which the blueprints break down and you’ve just got to feel your way through a project.
[...] What I’m saying is this: as much as their diligent cultivation of God-given powers has made them legends in our time, it’s all built on the foundation of a peculiar talent that came into this world with their very fingertips. The essential draughtsman was there at the beginning. That’s the talent. And the talent is what we really admire. [...] These guys are lauded as great successes for all the hard work they put into their craft. If Joe Schmuck on the street logged just as many hours (and some Joe Schmucks do) at the same craft as these draughstmen, no one would give a hoot. Because Joe Schmuck doesn’t have it. Tim Sale has it. Man does he have it. And as much as his hardwork pays off in making him better and better, it’s still will always be the essential Tim Sale, the talent he was born with, that we love.
[...] The truth is that, at the end of the day, we love artists for their talent and you can’t earn talent. [1]
To sum it up, some people have it, and some don’t, and no matter how hard you work or train, you’ll never be on the same level as those who have the gift of talent. The more I mull it over, I believe there are some people that do have a natural aptitude for something, be it words, numbers, sports, or art. Moreover, some things we can’t control no matter how hard we train, physical prowess and beauty for example; without the right build a person can’t be a sports star nor be a supermodel. That much I agree with, but by separating them into the haves and have-nots I feel it’s belittling the hard work of the latter. For example, looking at sports, say we take two equally matched people, same height, weight, etc. One is labeled as “talented”; both reach the same goal, the latter perhaps with more difficulty, but now they are at the same place in life, same fame, same money, etc. Because the second individual was not a natural as a child does it make him any less of an athlete? By Brady’s argument, yes. "No one would give a hoot."
Now considering artistic side of things, I have met people who I’d call uncreative. They are the mental meat and potatoes people of the world, although whether they were born that way or raised that way I can’t say for certain. Perhaps they could train themselves to think creativity if they are open to the notion, but if they were open to creativity in the first place they wouldn’t be considered uncreative, yes? No? We have something of a Catch 22 here, but this brings up the question of environment. Was the person nurtured creatively? What opportunities did he have? This is a question people have asked many times before; what makes a person who they are, nature or nurture?
Often times this opportunity is financial […] Having the financial wherewithal to pursue art is a major factor in the ability to get better and develop one's artistic skills. It's difficult to grow as an artist when one is simply struggling to survive. Other times, the opportunity is more abstract. Some kids have the self-esteem to get over the tough times as they learn their particular craft and others don't. In addition, I believe strongly that some children get the right type of support at the right time to give them enough confidence to keep going. That support could come from a parent or a teacher or someone else. It could even come from within themselves with their own inherent stubbornness. Regardless, something keeps them going and they get over their inherent "terribleness" to become fantastic artists in whatever medium they choose. This is even true when it comes to sport and athletics. When you factor these two points together […] it becomes very clear that artistic opportunity is not egalitarian. [2]
Despite that, do some people still have something more when it comes to talent? There are those who no matter how much they want to be the next big artist, they lack the spark -- although more commonly I find they lack the determination; it’s easy to talk about one’s goals but harder to actually do it. Sometimes you look at someone’s work, and though its technically good it lacks that inner something, that spark of inspiration that makes a piece astounding. But is that inherent talent or the result of hard work? We say people have an eye for color or an eye for design. How does one manage to do what can be termed “sloppy elegance” whereas another’s attempt comes off as lazy? Is it a gift or the result of something much more complicated?
It’s hard not to bring up popularity when discussing talent. Just something is popular doesn’t necessarily make it good. Talent, after all, is subjective, and many a lauded artist has only been recognized posthumously.
Artists like Vincent Van Gogh, now considered legendary, could barely make a living at their art in their own lifetimes. Van Gogh in particular was close to starvation just before he'd eventually die [...] From your essay's point of view, Van Gogh's position was the same as Joe Schmuck. Very few people at the time considered he had talent at all. Or, to rephrase your own words, the popular opinion of the time would have been that "Van Gogh doesn't have it." This is, of course, utterly false. The iron is that this public opinion changed after he died. And in the approximately 100 years since he died, he is now considered an artist genius. Popularity and public opinion, when discussing art, means nothing.
To drive home my point further: The National Gallery of Canada is this country's preeminent arts gallery. Despite this, there has never been a comic book artist in its halls. Only Roy Lichtenstein even comes close. The National Gallery is considered to be the be all and end all of what's considered to be art. And yet the four artists you refer to (Dean Haspiel, John Romita, Jr., Lewis Trondheim and Tim Sale) have never ordained it's walls. By the measure of your argument, they do not have merit. Comics, from the Gallery's point of view, are clearly not art. That may change (and a number of us are working to change that), but as it stands right now that's the case.
The only point I'll add is this: to be an artist, you have to be courageous. The aesthetics of art are so broad and tastes can change so often that an artist can easily become flavour of the month. And just as quickly forgotten. It takes courage to do art. To have the courage of your conviction and do art when perhaps no one else believes in you. When it comes to art, that's the only talent there is. The courage to overcome. By conflating populism with artistic merit (or Talent or whatever word you choose to use), you are undermining the inherent nature of what art is. There is nothing God-given about art at all. There is the work. And there is courage to do the work. [2]
Some people do have an aptitude for art, but there are levels of creation, such as to be able to picture the image in our head and the ability to manipulate our chosen media to create that image. Some people, through gift or grindstone, may be able to do one but not the other. Some can do both. But many have some sort of deficiency, an area that can use improvement. Thus, having a gift doesn’t ensure success. And if you don’t recognize and work on that deficiency why should you be “loved” just because you’re a natural talent? Regardless, not having what may be called a natural born talent doesn’t exclude you from certain fields nor does it make you any less admirable.
I like Stephen King's analogy of knives when it comes to talent. Everyone is born with a knife (their talent.) But nobody is born with a sharp knife. That comes from working with that talent, getting an idea of what you want to do, where your deficiencies lie, etc. Some people have really big knives, but never sharpen them, and basically they just keep whacking until the knife breaks. And some people have small knives, but they're so ungodly sharp they'll cut through damn near anything. [3]
I think I just broke my brain.