Well I have a big dilemma,For first I never had a talent with drawing on paper,I thought that art is not a thing for me,but once I'v tried to do a poster for a concert in photoshop and it turned out quite good,after that I'v done a lot of things in photoshop getting better and started loving it and art in general,it really hits me.And I'm thinking about going to art school but I'm quite sceptical about it even if I get a lot of positive feedback, I still dont think that my work is that good,but I have will and I want to do it.
and one thing sometimes that frustrates me is that I have an idea In my head is there and I'm not able to put it on paper to draw it,I would really be happy if I could somehow improve my drawing a bit,any ideas?? I mean really I draw like six year old,well maybe nine
sorry for bad english
btw : I want to take advertising design or business of art & design for bachelor's
Last edited by HopeBoy; October 1st, 2009 at 05:26 PM.
start a sketchbook and post your work in it. talent is over-rated. your will to study will way make up for any mysterious 'talent' you say you have or don't have, so don't draw upon that too much.
the drawing from the head thing - anything you draw from your imagination is a regurgitation of something you've got stored in your head. the best thing to do is keep drawing from reference and life. the more you study how things actually are the more information you have to draw upon.
i never know anyone in me life in art-college and art-uni have talent(as such require no practice to do art and they get what they want)
since majority of people want things they don't have themselve ,most people will not be happy anyway but hardwork
talent is almost a forbidden word to use,since you can do nothing about it .
hard, hard and hardwork is what you need because you can actually do something about
I couldn't agree more with you guys, sometimes I'm not sure if there is a thin line between talent and will or a massive separating line between those two, of if there's any at all. Maybe is both, maybe is none, or is just an illusion of our own human perspective?
If this taboo word "talent" is valid it had to cover a whole spectrum of function, as be a good artist ( talented ) requires an awful of different function coordination's.
hi am newbie here...well if we say talent your really good at a certain area but those talents are being mold...that's why they became better on their field of expertise.
There is such a thing as talent, just that folks here don't like to use that term, and use the word "aptitude" instead.
So, for example, Usain Bolt. Does he have talent? No, he has "an aptitude for running".
Art: 5% inspiration + 95% transpiration
It's mostly hard work that does it but some things are harder to master when you don't have a "knack" for it, say, the ability to transfer what you see in 3D to 2D.
I interpret talent as being a skill which you seem to start off with being...well, skilled in! Without practice. But talent alone doesn't get you far. It's the hard work that does msot of it!
"Hard Work Beats Talent When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"
Everybody has their good and bad drawing days. It is how you handle the bumps in the road that really count.
Last edited by Pigeonkill; October 9th, 2009 at 01:17 PM.
Make a sketchbook happy, feed it a tip to improve!
Last edited by ceruleanvii; November 7th, 2009 at 01:15 PM.
ceruleanvii : I see where you are coming from. I agree that there are always going to be an artist with a leg up in the industry. Someone who probably has +10 years of experience, better education, resources or have a more natural ability to draw.
That person who is a head, probably just had it as rough in the beginning. Talent or no talent, they had no idea how they would develop. But none of that would have been possible without effort. They had to believe their vision was worth it and aspire to those who were better than them.
Last edited by Pigeonkill; October 11th, 2009 at 05:01 PM.
Make a sketchbook happy, feed it a tip to improve!
I never believed there is something like talent. Everyone starts out with the inability to draw, no one starts out with the ability to draw, please link me one person who started out drawing well without practice.
There's not enough of a biological difference between people of normal intelligence to make some people able to draw and others not. It's just practice I believe.
How is it that if you saw a guy in shape, no one thinks it's talent? We obviously deduce the guy goes to the gym and works out and exercises for his body through perseverance and hard work. Especially since we don't hear - "Wow that guy has a talented bod!"
Yet when we draw we believe it's talent. (least the general public)
Also, read Art & Fear...
When i went to art school, it was immediately apparent that we were not all on the same playing field. This was at an art school that focused on the classical approach, drawing was heavily emphasized. starting out, 65% of the students were producing about the same caliber of work. 10% were not very good. about 10% were above the average and there were two or three student that were exceptional. through three years of school, the best couple of students remained the best artists. But there were a few who were average who really became quite good. Thirty years out, two of those "best" students are still on the top of their art field. As I look back I don't remember the most talented being the hardest workers, so it wasn't necessarily hard work that made them such outstanding artist.
I think its incorrect to say that talent does not exist. We all know it does. How do you explain the hundreds of child prodigies in music. Mozart was what, three?, when he started playing music. You tube is full of kids playing amazing stuff. It wasn't years of hard work that make child prodigies. I don't believe prodigies exist only in the musical arts. They exist in all the arts.
Face the fact that there are some very talented people whos talent is completely inexplicable. No amount of hard work is going to make it possible for anybody who wills it to become as good as Rembrandt. Someone may be able to do it, but hard work isnt going to be the only variable. Frankly, being in Rembrandt league is a club almost no one is invited to join. That is why HE is Rembrandt.
But hard work can make you a better artist than you were. What most of us need, along with hard work, is the faith to believe in ourselves. Forget the talented. Work hard. Dont give up. Believe in yourself And do it all again tomorrow.
And if thats not a good enough reason to make art, then perhaps we should look more closely at why we make art. Having as our goal to be the best artist is not realistic. Being the best artist I can be and being better than I was is something we can all do.
Regarding the Budhist monks. My father in law could read a poem once and recite it in full a week later because he had a photographic memory. It was an amazing and unlearned talent gotten through no hard work. It also got him through med school.
Last edited by fanooch; October 11th, 2009 at 12:41 AM.
In my oppinion it's got more to do with interest than talent. A person who's really interested in art, and not only draws all the time but spends his or her time thinking about art and how to become better will improve more than someone who does all the exercises but don't really have the interest to take their art beyond. In high school it seemed as if the people with the highest aims were the people who improved the most. The people who thought 'I'm good enough as it is' were the ones who didn't improve. I was actually quite surprised to see one person in my class in the last year who didn't seem to have learned a thing about painting people at all. And if you don't improve more than that it doesn't mean you've got no talent, it just means you aren't really trying.
There's probably something that can be called talent also. But I don't think it's such a major determining factor as people seem to think.
Last edited by ceruleanvii; November 7th, 2009 at 01:15 PM.
Different time and age, and we're still learning from their trade.
We are in different times, so making the comparison without the entire knowledge of what he went through to train doesn't really help. That's also why I suggested Art & Fear earlier.
It's really hard to measure each other's progress unless you are there every moment to see what was related to study. Granted some people catch onto concepts quicker, but what we attribute to talent is often hard work that we don't see
Just like when someone points out the child prodigy example...how many of those child prodigies are now making a difference or are memorable past that childhood?
You had people like Michael Jackson, and Wade Robson...for example (give or take your tastes in dance and music).
But a majority of them fade away. It still didn't account for all the hard work they do. You know they don't just go up on the stage and it's "just that easy" they often have to practice. Just like the rest.
The difference is likely as others have mentioned, it wasn't "hard work" to them or didn't have the appearance of such since they liked doing it.
As they advance to higher levels of math, they are also more able to understand and absorb the related material than others (so, they learn much more quickly with much less work). Instead of needing to sit down and study for 10 hours doing homework every night... they just need to listen to someone say it once or read it in a book once and they understand it and can move on.
Art is like any other subject. You are trying to learn it... a combination of muscle control and knowledge about various apsects (lighting, textures, whatever). There is also a creativity factor that you simply can't really teach (you can help, but some people are naturally creative people).
Some people are able to relate and absorb the subject faster than others. They will advance faster and reach a higher level than others (given the same amount of work). Yea, you can try to advance beyond those types... by simply throwing TONS of hours at it (hard work does have its place).
Just like the students that would study all day for weeks before a test and get a 95, instead of the naturally gifted who just reads the chapter an hour before the test and score a 90. The one who worked very hard ended up achieving a better understanding of the material... even given the disadvantage in natural talent they had. But, if the natural talented one had applied himself seriously, he would have been unbeatable.
Basically, talent can help a LOT. But, it isn't the entire game....
Can we describe savants as having talent? there amazing
There's also a NBA game that had Paula Abdul doing a dance off, and Wade Robson showed up. So he was dancing pretty young.
The reason I generally dismiss the talent thing is that yes, we know it gets a leg up to certain people, but most childhood prodigies or gifted folks that stick with it are few and far in between. There's also the problem that once it's used, it's also used as an excuse not to be the best you can be. But it's been said...
Hmm my take on talent is interest + how fast he/she absorb the subjects matters and digest it into his/her brain.
However, being worried about not as talented as the rest does not help. Just work harder than them. Ever heard of the rabbit and turtle race?
If you constantly work hard, and if the talented ones slacked just for abit you can catch up.
Why do some of you find the idea "I can't be as good as Michaelangelo" or whomever motivating?
Imagine a scientist saying "I don't want to be as good as Einstein" or whomever.
What kind of science would this person be doing if he can't even be as good as Einstein, much less ussurpass him and make new discoveries in the field?
I think about this question more or less in terms of:
"Skill" >> It can be learned and mastered by everyone who wants so bad to be the best.
"Talent" >> Kind of imagination, or new raw ideas.
Because, Michelangelo had a, pretty decent set of skills, and very wide. From paint, to sculpture, to arquitecture, etc, but his final pieces are, not spectacular finished. (Face it, lots of people can come up with the same final result).
I think "Talent" is what it gives the Michelangelo works the "charm". Because nobody has every thinked about "The David" before. But when the idea is here, a competent artist can make it happen. Look at movies and you´ll see what I mean.
So, one thing is the skill needed to work in something and the other, the imagination to come to something to work on. (and by the way, Vasari in his "Life of the great artists", had been written that Michelangelo drawed 4 hours in the morning when he was -88 I think-, and then he died.). So Michelangelo was top-noch, but the guy drawed and painted every fucking day of his life, on sheets, on the walls of his house, etc. So He can draw, yes, but because he was always drawing.
And the other thing is the Talent. And the talent is nothing more than the ability to give a twist to things and come with things than doesn´t exists yet. For example:
And it applies for everyone. Michael Jackson can come up with spectacular ideas for dancing and songs, but the guy practiced dance moves everyday in front of a mirror everyday of his life, and, for example, from his BAD album, he discarded 100 (one hundred) of songs, written from scratch.
As a learning artist, I realized that I can have ideas for a piece or a painting, but if I haven´t the ability to make it happen, It just worth nothing. So I give it, more or less a 25/75 in terms of importance.
So, in a piece, the idea is the star of the show, but a star needs a decent scenario to perform and excell, and bring joy and tears to the audience.
Last edited by Ian Miles; October 12th, 2009 at 10:13 AM.
I agree with Leonor here. I can be as good as Michaelangelo, assuming that the all things are equal. However, the question becomes..."Will I become as good as Michealangelo?"
I am sure that there is some child in the world who can draw anything he/she wants any time, anywhere, period. THAT is talent. That child has never seen a classroom for art, but can do it.
However, the rest of us...It's all about what we can learn, how hard we try, and how much we can change over time. I mean, if I draw today like I drew when I was six....I'd have to find a different thing to learn. Fact is, over the years, I have gotten better. And now that I am in school, learning about these concepts...I'm a hell of a lot better than I was last year att his time. Why? Because I'm learning and I am tryng new things, with new concepts floating around in my head.
That is what art is about for me. It is the one thing that I want to be very good at. As a result, I am willing to go through a lot to do it. Some people with talent do not have the will to learn something new about their talent...why...because they can already do it better anyway. When I see true talent wasted like that...I want to cry.
So, while there is truly talented people in the world, at anything. For the rest of us...we will get there, assuming that we are willing to work to get there.
Last edited by ceruleanvii; November 7th, 2009 at 01:16 PM.
i believe there are really talented people, i remember back in academy i have one classmate that really not need to go to B instead he goes from A to C.
he is so really good in painting, we challenge him to do digital not traditional and we said wow, we have to remove his eyeballs or chop off his hands... he's really amazing. You name it, representational ->proportions perspective, colors, etc
but he never evolves, he was stuck with the same subject-matter, with the same method, with the same ideas....there's nothing new and he was boring.
but still he was talented compare to us, back then and i guess up to now.
Last edited by nevermindjoker; October 12th, 2009 at 04:36 PM. Reason: added