How does one become an artist?

[Dilemma]

First of all, to clear things out - I am not an artist myself, but I found this site and the complex artwork found here really intrigued me. I would love to draw such awesome works myself, but I've never been good at drawing. In school there were some people in class, who could draw people and other simple stuff, which seemed complicated to me. So I guess it's a talent. If you have no talent, you can become a decent artist if you train for long enough, but the result won't be as efficient as if you would be born an artist. Am I right? What are your thoughts on this subject?

[Darren_1989]

Far more qualified people will answer you shortly I'm sure, but let me give you the quick answer. Talent only does so much for you in art. There is a lot to learn, and anybody with the dedication can learn it. I used to think you either could or you couldn't, but over the last year I started drawing more and now I'm taking a drawing class at school. Its really mostly about how much work you're willing to put into it. If you really want to be an artist, go for it, its a very rewarding thing to do, even if its just a hobby for you.

[Brendan N]

'talent is a word used by those who have not tried hard enough' is a quote I'll never forget, even though I forgot who said it.

No such thing really. There's a basic aptitude for observation, or a different way of thinking that may or may not result in an aptitude for conceptualisation, but ultimately it's down to years and years of training and hard work. Anyone can do it, provided they're determined enough.

Becoming an artist is as easy as saying 'I want to be an artist.' But becoming something worth the slightest bit of attention is a different story. I think everyone is an artist in their own right. Don't try to categorize and separate artists and non-artists like you have here. Essentialism has, in my humble opinion, no place here :).

[Seedling]

Talent has little to do with it. People who are passionate about making art keep doing it and studying it intelligently until they are good at it.

Try the link in my sig called “Concept Art 101” if you would like to learn, too.

[Dilemma]

Thank you for your answers. Talent, in my opinion, is minimum effort-maximum effieciency. There is this young girl who started drawing very good portraits at young age, nobody tought her anything, she is talanted. If she would train to become a professional artist she would achieve much more than a person with just plain dedication. It's not just about art, it's about every skill or feat in this world. Naturally tall players will be better basketball players and people with certain parts of brain more developed - better at other skills, for example, art. Those are my thoughts.

[Seedling]

If you are here to learn how to improve your art skills, great! Grab a pencil and jump in. Less yak, more elbow grease.

[Dilemma]

I'm not here to learn actually. Just to talk.

[alesoun]

So, what do YOU think makes a natural artist? (Oh, I hope I don't regret asking this) What do you think their defining quality is?

[Goog]

I think Elwell put it best when he said, (or quoted, can't remember), that art is like riding a bicycle, everyone can do it, but there is only one Lance Armstrong.

[Dilemma]

Hmm, it's hard for me to tell, but I would guess that the more realistic the picture looks the better artist you are. Meaning - if you can paint in such a quality when one can not tell wether it is a painting or a photo taken.

[FactorZero]

Thank you for your answers. Talent, in my opinion, is minimum effort-maximum effieciency. There is this young girl who started drawing very good portraits at young age, nobody tought her anything, she is talanted. If she would train to become a professional artist she would achieve much more than a person with just plain dedication. It's not just about art, it's about every skill or feat in this world. Naturally tall players will be better basketball players and people with certain parts of brain more developed - better at other skills, for example, art. Those are my thoughts.

But, because people tell that girl that she is talented she may not try as hard as the next person. The person with little talent but lots of motivation will surpass her through hard work. 10yrs later she might be drawing at the same skill level, never pushing herself. Most talented people don't try as hard and but they still are good at what they do. In order to reach your true potential you need to work as hard as possible and never stop learning no matter how good you get.

[alesoun]

Hmm, it's hard for me to tell, but I would guess that the more realistic the picture looks the better artist you are. Meaning - if you can paint in such a quality when one can not tell wether it is a painting or a photo taken.

But,- no offence,- isn't that why the camera was invented?

[Elwell]

Thank you for your answers. Talent, in my opinion, is minimum effort-maximum effieciency. There is this young girl who started drawing very good portraits at young age, nobody tought her anything, she is talanted. If she would train to become a professional artist she would achieve much more than a person with just plain dedication. It's not just about art, it's about every skill or feat in this world. Naturally tall players will be better basketball players and people with certain parts of brain more developed - better at other skills, for example, art. Those are my thoughts.
Dilemma, I read this, and I think, "exactly! He's got things all figures out." But then in the next breath you come up with:
Hmm, it's hard for me to tell, but I would guess that the more realistic the picture looks the better artist you are. Meaning - if you can paint in such a quality when one can not tell wether it is a painting or a photo taken.
and I have to totally reassess things.

[kev ferrara]

Dear concerned creative,

It just so happens I sell Certificates of Artistic Authenticity for $19.99 (plus processing and handling fees). This is wallet sized card signed in real gold marker by the President and Vice Chairman of the Official American Artistic Qualification and Substantiation Board!! And you can carry around with you wherever you go, impress your friends and defeat your detractors! This card, printed on heavy matte royal white card stock in a glorious Ink Quill penmanship font, is proof, solid demonstrable proof, that you... yes YOU... are an artist!!

This card can not be rescinded. And if you act now, you get a second card for absolutely free!!

Offer not valid in California or New York.

[alesoun]

Ooooh! Can I have one? I'll swap it for a bridge!

[Brendan N]

kev - that's the witty response I was 'looking' for in my post. Was distantly thinking the same thing just couldn't get it down so eloquently. thanks for the laugh and yes I'll have two.

[Justin Reed]

You're either born with artistic talent or you're not. It's the same with musical, athletic, mathmatical, writing or many other talents. If you aren't born with natural artistic ability, no amount of practicing will really help you that much. You may get a little better at it, but you aren't going to become a Leonardo da Vinci, no matter how much you practice.

On the first day of art class in high school, my teacher told us all to cross our fingers together and then she went around the room and looked at our hands. She looked at my hands and smiled at me and then she did the same to my friend who is a talented artist. She then told us all that the right side of the brain is the artistic side and that people with artistic ability have dominant right halves. What she was looking at was how our thumbs crossed each other. If your left thumb crosses over your right thumb, then the right half of your brain is dominant and you have artistic potential. If your right thumb is over your left, then you don't. I have some friends that are musicians that said that they had some music instructors that made them tap their hands on their chest, alternating between the right and left hand to see if they could keep a rhythm. The instructors wouldn't bother teaching a kid that couldn't keep the rhythm because it was a waste of time because they just didn't have a natural musical potential. It's the same with athletic ability. If you aren't born with an athletic body, then you just can't ever be a good athelete.

That said, just because you're born with artistic or atheletic potential doesn't necissarily mean you'll be good at it. That's where training and practice come in. But, all the training and practice in the world won't help you if you don't have the natural potential.

[FactorZero]

You're either born with artistic talent or you're not. It's the same with musical, athletic, mathmatical, writing or many other talents. If you aren't born with natural artistic ability, no amount of practicing will really help you that much. You may get a little better at it, but you aren't going to become a Leonardo da Vinci, no matter how much you practice.

On the first day of art class in high school, my teacher told us all to cross our fingers together and then she went around the room and looked at our hands. She looked at my hands and smiled at me and then she did the same to my friend who is a talented artist. She then told us all that the right side of the brain is the artistic side and that people with artistic ability have dominant right halves. What she was looking at was how our thumbs crossed each other. If your left thumb crosses over your right thumb, then the right half of your brain is dominant and you have artistic potential. If your right thumb is over your left, then you don't. I have some friends that are musicians that said that they had some music instructors that made them tap their hands on their chest, alternating between the right and left hand to see if they could keep a rhythm. The instructors wouldn't bother teaching a kid that couldn't keep the rhythm because it was a waste of time because they just didn't have a natural musical potential. It's the same with athletic ability. If you aren't born with an athletic body, then you just can't ever be a good athelete.

That said, just because you're born with artistic or atheletic potential doesn't necissarily mean you'll be good at it. That's where training and practice come in. But, all the training and practice in the world won't help you if you don't have the natural potential.

This is not true at all. First off, a large percentage of people are right handed, and I'm willing to bet if we took a poll that the same would be true on these boards. Being right brain dominantnaturally does help but you can easily teach yourself to think with your right hemisphere.

Ever heard of the book 'Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain?' The book is all about teaching you to switch over from left brain thnking to right brain thinking. People who were taught to think right brained showed dramatic improvement in a very short period of time.

Drawing is all about using your right brain to see and understand the forms, and then applying it to the paper using hand eye coordination. Using the right brain can be taught, and the coordination to translate the forms to paper can be gained through repetition. That's all it is, understanding and repetition.

Many people on this site who weren't very good artists to begin with have become very good artists with practice.

[kev ferrara]

I now see that my thumbs are all fucked up. I guess I gotta quit art. :(

But thank you for the post. At least now i know the young art students of today are getting the education they need.

[Flake]

Okay, now that we've established that "talent" and natural gifts are a myth, can anyone explain how I get to be a pro basketball player?
I'm 5'7" but I'm really into sport, if that helps.

Once I've done that I'd kinda like to be a heavyweight UFC champion, how should I do that? We all have equal potential right? It's just a matter of effort.

If we get there, my final mission is to become a composer, It'll be easier now that I know it's only practice. That guy I know with perfect pitch who could play guitar riffs after hearing them once despite knowing no music theory was a freak.

Damn, it's good to know that we are all unique and beautiful snowflakes who can do anything we set our minds to.

[alesoun]

Damn, it's good to know that we are all unique and beautiful snowflakes who can do anything we set our minds to.
__________________

I tell my daughter that every single day! Don't tell me I've been lying all these years?

Mind you, I didn't promise we'd be the best.....

5'7? Have you tried the stilts people who put up false ceilings wear? I'm told they're springy!

[Zaxser]

There are actual evolutionary reasons that a person would grow to be taller or have better reflexes. There aren't evolutionary reasons for being a better or worse basketball player.

I do think people's brains are often configured differently. I do think success in art might have a slight correlation with intelligence. But the thing is, art is a big, big subject. Comparing Leonardo Da Vinci to Micheal Angelo is like comparing the best hurdler to the best long jumper- they're similar, talented, might even have many of the training exercises, but certainly not interchangeable. Comparing Escher to Clamp is like comparing the best baseball coach to the best thumb wrestler. If you want to be an artist and work hard- really hard- for ten years, you'll definitely be an artist, but there's no telling what kind you'll be.

[kev ferrara]

Michael Jordan is way better than Andy Warhol.

[ArmoredGorilla]

There are actual evolutionary reasons that a person would grow to be taller or have better reflexes. There aren't evolutionary reasons for being a better or worse basketball player.

Sort of. Check out some Dawkins or some Ridley, particularly Ridley's take on "runaway sexual ornamentation". If you can think of basketball as it's own encapsulated skillset, being good at basketball does give you an 'survival and replication' advantage (i.e. evolutionary advantage) if it means that more people want to sleep with you. Same applies to artistic genius actually; kind of like peacock feathers...

Anyway, Flake has a point, that some people are just wired better for certain activities. But just like arithmetic, speaking, or writing... drawing is a learnable skill. I like what Elwell said once: "everyone can learn to ride a bike, but we're not all gonna be Lance Armstrong".

[Seedling]

On the first day of art class in high school, my teacher told us all to cross our fingers together and then she went around the room and looked at our hands. She looked at my hands and smiled at me and then she did the same to my friend who is a talented artist. She then told us all that the right side of the brain is the artistic side and that people with artistic ability have dominant right halves. What she was looking at was how our thumbs crossed each other. If your left thumb crosses over your right thumb, then the right half of your brain is dominant and you have artistic potential. If your right thumb is over your left, then you don't. I have some friends that are musicians that said that they had some music instructors that made them tap their hands on their chest, alternating between the right and left hand to see if they could keep a rhythm. The instructors wouldn't bother teaching a kid that couldn't keep the rhythm because it was a waste of time because they just didn't have a natural musical potential. It's the same with athletic ability. If you aren't born with an athletic body, then you just can't ever be a good athlete.


This shit makes me fucking angry. No teacher should use such unproven nonsense to dictate how they teach, and no high school teacher should decline to teach an interested student, no matter how poorly they expect that student to do.

You're either born with artistic talent or you're not. It's the same with musical, athletic, mathematical, writing or many other talents.

Big steaming pile of horse excrement. Do yourself a favor and unlearn every piece of information your ignorant art teacher ever taught you.

[Shadowwing]

I think there is a confusion here, about what is talent. I think that when you are talking about talent, you are referring to "gifted". Being gifted means, being able to do something at an advanced skill level, at early age, without any previous teaching. Like Mozart. Talented means being skilled, usually after years of hard work.

I agree, it doesn't matter if you are gifted or not, because even if a person is gifted, he/she will eventually be surpassed by others without practicing.

It is a proven fact that habits/abilities are sometimes passed on genetically. I've seen children develop same habits or personality as their parents at an early age. So, aptitude for certain abilities can be passed on...a couple with great artistic abilities may have children with good artistic ability (or not). Same for music, sports, etc. Some people just have that natural ability or genetic inclination to be able to excel at some things, without trying so much.

BUT....

Any skill can be learned, whether or not you are good at it to start with. Genetic/ physical limitations can be bypassed or overcome. The brain is a wonderfully flexible organ--it can be trained in so many ways...if you suck at art, but if you really want to be an artist, you can eventually be a good one after practicing and working at it. I've seen some people who had horrible artistic ability develop into excellent artists after years of hard work. I sucked at math, and flunked basic Algebra several times...but after trying, I was able to make it through 2 years of calculus.

My two cents.

[Zaxser]

Sort of. Check out some Dawkins or some Ridley, particularly Ridley's take on "runaway sexual ornamentation". If you can think of basketball as it's own encapsulated skillset, being good at basketball does give you an 'survival and replication' advantage (i.e. evolutionary advantage) if it means that more people want to sleep with you. Same applies to artistic genius actually; kind of like peacock feathers...

Anyway, Flake has a point, that some people are just wired better for certain activities. But just like arithmetic, speaking, or writing... drawing is a learnable skill. I like what Elwell said once: "everyone can learn to ride a bike, but we're not all gonna be Lance Armstrong".

Wasn't Ridley the guy who wrote Red Queen? That's one of the few books on sexual selection I've ever read. Although being a good basketball player can be an evolutionary advantageous adaption today, it's due to a fluke of several advantageous traits coming together. Even with runaway sexual selection, it might take thousands instead of millions of years to make humans develop in the way that border collies have- for one specific activity, like basketball or painting or sheparding.

Mozart was trained from a very, very early age by his father. He had been observing what his father had bee doing, (playing piano) since he was born. He might have even heard it in the womb and attached the sounds to the piano made to warm, fuzzy feelings and developed a true love for it, hence, practice. He might have even been a genius, with high intelligence and a natural aptitude for understanding sound a rhythm. He was not born knowing how to play the piano.

There are a few mathematical and musical prodigies. Einstein wasn't one of them. Beethoven was deaf when he made his best work. There are very, very few autistic kids who have developed artistic aptitude. Their case studies are fascinating- some of them make ingenious work at four,but are average by eight. Regardless, Picasso, Leonado Da Vinci, Clamp, Gez Fry, Kristen Perry and pretty much everybody whose made it big in art, aren't savants. On top of that, I haven't heard of anyone who says there's an evolution advantage to being a prodigy or savant. Everybody I've mentioned by name had to work hard over the course of years to get where they are. My honest belief is that almost everybody- minus a Terry Schiavo or a Stephen Hawking- can become a great painter. By utilizing comparative advantage, artist can develop ideas and images that have never existed before.

[kev ferrara]

Being gifted means, being able to do something at an advanced skill level, at early age, without any previous teaching. Like Mozart.

Mozart had no previous training is a little known fact!

Because it isn't true.

See: Martini, Abel, Albrechtsberger, Haydn, Bach's son, and every other person father Leopold Mozart could get to tutor his son.

[Shadowwing]

^

Oops. Bad example. Well, you get the idea!

[Salsa_artist]

Here's my thought on talent: Anyone with half a brain can buzz a sound on a brass instrument and get a half decent note, anyone can tap their foot in time with a piece of music, Anyone can walk while holding an instrument, BUT you have to work at playing, marching, breathing, and keeping time ALL AT ONCE to be good at marching. It took me two years to finally get eight to five down, it took me two years to finally get my partials right. I don't have a lick of musical talent yet I consider myself a musician. Why? 'Cause I worked at. I may have not been any higher than third chair in the second concert band, but I earned that chair. I guess what I am trying to say is you don't need to be "talented" in something to do it.

From the insane trombonist
Salsa

[Brendan N]

You're [.........] potential.

this mentality deserves a banning, mate.
In fact, I'm still wondering whether you're not sarcastic about it all. So much cock 'n bull gorilla shit in one post, I have never seen.

[Hyskoa]

hahahaha, talent.
You can't make money with that.

[Jason Rainville]

I see your "you need talent" and raise you a mindcandyman (http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=870&highlight=mindcandyman)

I'm no poker genius, but I think that's a checkmate.

[serhc]

I think we need to unravel some definitions here, because we all seem to be using them in different fashions, and getting angry because of that.

Talent - that is, your natural aptitude for some set of intellectual or physical abilities; whether it is more highly developed observational skills, finer muscle control, quicker reflexes, etc.

Skill - skill is your actual amount of ability, the hard measure of the way you perceive, translate, and conceive of your ideas.

I don't think we need to debate the existence of talent, though if some of you are uncomfortable with the word, let's call it 'natural aptitude'. Talent is the innate fluid intelligence that helps you grasp ideas and concepts, and turn them into hard skills. Let's not try to deny that with the same amount of work, some will learn more quickly, some more slowly - that's talent. You can reach the same level of skill as many others if you lack talent but possess an incredible work ethic, but it will take you longer, and you cannot reach the same level of ability as someone who possesses both; because, as we all seem to agree, you can never stop learning.

But of course, at a certain point, ability isn't the crucial thing, it's creativity. It's that creativity, ingenuity, and brilliance that does not necessarily lie within the artist's realm that's the kicker.

It's the combination of hard-earned ability with innate ingenuity gives someone the chance to be considered great among peers and the public.

[Salsa_artist]

I think we need to unravel some definitions here, because we all seem to be using them in different fashions, and getting angry because of that.

Talent - that is, your natural aptitude for some set of intellectual or physical abilities; whether it is more highly developed observational skills, finer muscle control, quicker reflexes, etc.

Skill - skill is your actual amount of ability, the hard measure of the way you perceive, translate, and conceive of your ideas.

I don't think we need to debate the existence of talent, though if some of you are uncomfortable with the word, let's call it 'natural aptitude'. Talent is the innate fluid intelligence that helps you grasp ideas and concepts, and turn them into hard skills. Let's not try to deny that with the same amount of work, some will learn more quickly, some more slowly - that's talent. You can reach the same level of skill as many others if you lack talent but possess an incredible work ethic, but it will take you longer, and you cannot reach the same level of ability as someone who possesses both; because, as we all seem to agree, you can never stop learning.

But of course, at a certain point, ability isn't the crucial thing, it's creativity. It's that creativity, ingenuity, and brilliance that does not necessarily lie within the artist's realm that's the kicker.

It's the combination of hard-earned ability with innate ingenuity gives someone the chance to be considered great among peers and the public.
AMEN TO THAT!!!!