Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 176

Thread: The "you can do it!" thoery, and why i don't believe it.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 91 Times in 24 Posts

    The "you can do it!" thoery, and why i don't believe it.

    “If you work hard every day, you too can be Van Gogh”

    I see many people are very fond of this theory, especially people here on CA. I'm not posting this to scandalize anyone, I'm doing it to attempt to explain why I think it’s false. Call it "speaking my mind".

    By this theory if only 1% of the world’s population is interested in “becoming an artist”, and say half of them work hard and succeed we should have 30 000 000 artist of Dali’s caliber right now. Let’s say half of them don’t get acknowledged and famous due to various circumstances, we should have 15 000 000 of them. Do you have any idea what that would be like? In the worst case scenario, we should have FIFTEEN MILLION artists. But we don’t, in fact I don’t even think we have numbers anywhere close to 1% of 15 000 000, that’s 150000. Maybe we have 1500, MAYBE.

    Chew on those numbers a little bit.

    Add to that:

    a) Probably way more than 1% of the people on this planet are trying to “become artists”
    b) The world didn’t start existing today.

    And you kinda get a feel for just how ridiculous the reality it.

    (Even if you calculate the percentages leaving the populations of developing countries out, you still get similar, mind boggling numbers)

    That is the first issue I have with this theory, it doesn’t mirror reality even remotely. You probably noticed I put “becoming an artist” between quotation marks. That’s the second problem I have with it. Now I shouldn’t even be talking about this because I think I already proved this theory is 100% wrong and it seem to me that the subject of “what is art?” causes greater shitstorms than subjects like religion or abortion. But I’m gonna go ahead and indulge myself anyway.

    To me, the difference between a drawing and art is like the difference between a house and a cathedral, a brick and a sculpture, body building and Muay Boran. Anyone can learn how to build a house, but probably not as many people could “learn” how to build a cathedral. Anyone can master brick casting, but only a few people can be sculptors. Most people can increase the diameter of their biceps thought physical training, but only a small number of people in this world could kill you with a flying knee.

    I guess what I’m trying to say with that is art is much more than just the technical stuff. The ever growing portfolio full of nothing but inane anatomical drawing will get you nowhere. You have to have TALENT. And yes, talent without work is indeed worthless. But more importantly, work without talent is equally worthless.

    I imagine most of the people reading this really hate my guts now.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to vampire cervix For This Useful Post:


  4. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Magic Land of Art
    Posts
    564
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 284 Times in 197 Posts
    I don't hate your guts.

    I do think your own theory is flawed. You're assuming that everyone who wants to be an artist keeps at it until they achieve their goal. Most people get demotivated, find another career, or something along those lines and quit pursuing it. So I think you really need to reevalute that portion because people don't always actively go after it even if they say they want to.

    But I do agree, it helps to have talent.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Jen Wardell For This Useful Post:


  6. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    62
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    I think a lot of people who fail say "oh but I have been working hard!", but really they were just being a pussy about it at best. There's almost a madness to the method, it's hard to develop an obsession that doesn't inherently come on pretty fast.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,035
    Thanks
    2,167
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 1,123 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vampire cervix View Post
    Chew on those numbers a little bit.
    I'd rather not, they'd probably taste funny after being pulled out of your ass.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. The Following 42 Users Say Thank You to Jason Rainville For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  9. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,211
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,685 Times in 5,022 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vampire cervix View Post
    a) Probably way more than 1% of the people on this planet are trying to “become artists”
    I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I think even 1% is way too high.

    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom, London
    Posts
    571
    Thanks
    212
    Thanked 341 Times in 157 Posts
    Horribly flawed argument indeed.

    However this will probably round down to a semantic discussion on the mean of the word "talent".

    For example:
    Subject A
    Draws like a fiend, he can look at something for a few minutes and then draw it from any angle he chooses...etc.... etc.... (He has "artistic talent")
    However he also lacks motivation and he doesn't like being told what to do; he lacks discipline. (this results in him never becoming a great artist)

    Subject B
    He's ok at art and he enjoys but he's no Da Vinci, yet. (he's got potential but perhaps less "artistic talent" than subject A)
    He does however have the perseverance of a mule and he keeps at it. If something doesn't work for him he tries again, and again, and again. (He eventually becomes a successful artist)

    Now which of these subjects is considered to have the fabled "talent"?

    Is simply the potential for success considered talent? In which case the "you can do it" theory proves true.

    Perhaps it is only upon reaching success that talent can be identified, so in summation subject A lacks the needed discipline and motivation to back up his artistic ablility, and so rending him "not talented"?

    I suppose the truth is there is no way of knowing if you can become a successful artist but there's one hell of a lot of things you can do to increase the chances.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Smashed_Pumpkin For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,651
    Thanks
    2,127
    Thanked 2,318 Times in 906 Posts
    yea dude, everybody should think like you . We should try and find more reasons why we can't do things
    'If you don't make mistakes, you're not working on hard enough problems.And that's a big mistake.'
    www.DaveRapoza.com - Step by Steps, Videos, PSD Downloads, and tons of other crap
    SketchBook
    My Twitter Account
    Schoolism Alien Video Tutorial!
    -HAHAHA B.B.F.F. Forever...-
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  14. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Delicious For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  15. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    massachusetts USA
    Posts
    487
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 503 Times in 152 Posts
    in one year of taking my art seriously, and working much much harder than in years previous, I have seen my skillset expand and improve exponentially. its amazing just how possible things become once you accept that the problem isnt how hard they are, or how small the pantheon of pros is, its you and your own lack of drive. what youre saying sounds grossly similar to obese people sitting around eating cheeseburgers saying 'its a clinical fact, my familys just always been fat'. shut up and get on the treadmill.
    or, just give up entirely.
    -HAHAHA B.B.F.F. Forever...-
    Crimson Daggers! live in the Danger Room, daily at 10am est!

    http://livestream.com/danielsdangerroom
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Henchman 21 For This Useful Post:


  17. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 85 Times in 33 Posts
    Sorry to say it, but I completely agree. I've seen people here at CA who have gone from not-so-good to amazing, but I firmly believe that's because they had un-nurtured talent.

    I find some people think of talent as a ridiculous magical imaginary thing that doesn't exist, but I think of talent as how the brain works. Some have the ability to see things and put them on paper, just as some can do calculus in their head. It's just how your head works, you cant change it.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  18. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 91 Times in 24 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Smashed_Pumpkin View Post
    Horribly flawed argument indeed.

    However this will probably round down to a semantic discussion on the mean of the word "talent".

    For example:
    Subject A
    Draws like a fiend, he can look at something for a few minutes and then draw it from any angle he chooses...etc.... etc.... (He has "artistic talent")
    However he also lacks motivation and he doesn't like being told what to do; he lacks discipline. (this results in him never becoming a great artist)

    Subject B
    He's ok at art and he enjoys but he's no Da Vinci, yet. (he's got potential but perhaps less "artistic talent" than subject A)
    He does however have the perseverance of a mule and he keeps at it. If something doesn't work for him he tries again, and again, and again. (He eventually becomes a successful artist)

    Now which of these subjects is considered to have the fabled "talent"?

    Is simply the potential for success considered talent? In which case the "you can do it" theory proves true.

    Perhaps it is only upon reaching success that talent can be identified, so in summation subject A lacks the needed discipline and motivation to back up his artistic ablility, and so rending him "not talented"?

    I suppose the truth is there is no way of knowing if you can become a successful artist but there's one hell of a lot of things you can do to increase the chances.
    Both subject A and subject B will fail. Like I said, talent and work are equally important, one is useless without the other. "Without me, my rifle is useless, without my rifle, I am useless". Digging for water is pointless if there's no water there. How many analogies do you want?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to vampire cervix For This Useful Post:


  20. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom, London
    Posts
    571
    Thanks
    212
    Thanked 341 Times in 157 Posts
    It's not quite as black and white as that I'm afraid. And if you think it is then you're living in an oddly contrasted world.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  21. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    410
    Thanks
    525
    Thanked 477 Times in 158 Posts
    Too much math on an art forum.
    SECONDS: Do you work from life of photographs?
    FRAZETTA: I work from my head.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Irishdrunk For This Useful Post:


  23. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Magic Land of Art
    Posts
    564
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 284 Times in 197 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vampire cervix View Post
    Both subject A and subject B will fail. Like I said, talent and work are equally important, one is useless without the other. "Without me, my rifle is useless, without my rifle, I am useless". Digging for water is pointless if there's no water there. How many analogies do you want?
    If one becomes a professional how on earth can you claim that that is a failure?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SketchBook: Art_Addict :: """"""""""""" PRAHA DROP """"""""""""
    By Art_Addict in forum Sketchbooks
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: March 26th, 2010, 03:43 PM
  2. NEWBORN- Guilt of the Father: "Birth of NHUME" and "Summoning MESSIAH"
    By Josif in forum THE CONCEPTART.org 2009 Newborn Contest
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 21st, 2009, 09:10 PM
  3. 3 Shorts : "Open" "Grow" "Robot Ali"
    By kingsley in forum ART CRITIQUE CENTER
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 12th, 2007, 05:18 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 7th, 2006, 09:25 AM
  5. Art: Cthulhu : "the forest laughs" and "private treatment center" (updated)
    By mime in forum FINISHED ART & ARTWORK
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 9th, 2005, 01:33 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook