BananaSnail In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 10:44:44 +0000 UTC]

Now wait, that's a good point.
Maybe we really should just separate the two.
There's art skill,
and then "talent" or whatever anyone wants to call it.

Which brings us to the question.
If I draw a smilie face, does that show my emotion? 
But it's the crappiest smilie face ever and everyone can draw it. 
Does that mean everyone is talented?
Or do symbols not count since symbols are like artists in their own way
(I'm just thinking out loud, those are interesting points, like
where do you draw the line between you emotions and shared emotions like a smilie face drawing)

Hmm...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

dragon-in-night In reply to BananaSnail [2014-06-25 15:13:27 +0000 UTC]

Show emotion is one thing, but let people feel what you want to show is another story. Sure everyone can draw a smillie face, just like everyone can write the word "happy", but does it speak to you? Make you feel happy? I don't think so.

I must say that my opinion relevant to my view what can call good art. Many people may don't agree with me. 
I have watched a lot of people on deviantart, at first I watched people with great skill. But after three years see a lot of artwork with great shading, colors and anatomy, I start to feel bored. Though I still admire and watche artist have great skilled, they no longer can interested me. Now I more focus on unique and sympathy.

I see all people here agree that with hard work, anyone can achieve a certain level, some faster than others. But at least it's not impossible to learn. However, the ways show ideas, feeling and emotions is not something you can learn just by hard work, sure you can learn effects of colors on human, express emotions on faces, but if you can't really feel it, you can not achieve the same way of expressing like those people who can show their feel to watchers. 

When one reachs the professional level, the difference in skills with others is very little, you will need something other than drawing skills to make a different.

English is not my first language so I hope you can understand what I want to say.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BananaSnail In reply to dragon-in-night [2014-06-25 16:49:27 +0000 UTC]

Yes I understood everything

I think many people need to move past their boundaries in art,
for example, someone who only draws horses, should try drawing other animals 
or even instead of drawing try painting or using pastels or digital art. 

That way they can discover more ways to spread their thoughts through their art.

Whenever someone on DA that I follow posts something new that isn't their usual style its really interesting to see it. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RoadZero In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 09:51:15 +0000 UTC]

You actually can develop your mindset, though most people don't seem to care for it specifically... and you still develop it in your own "frames".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BananaSnail In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 10:38:09 +0000 UTC]

Yes that's true, the more you do the more you open yourself to it. 
Although it all boils down to, "do you enjoy it"

Maybe I didn't word that correctly in my previous comment. 
To some people bringing out their inner thoughts onto a medium comes more naturally than others.
Like with anything, drawing, dancing, music, sports, public speaking, teaching, ect.
You can develop anything really, all in time and with practice, 
but the knack is either there or it isn't. Can't force it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RoadZero In reply to BananaSnail [2014-06-25 10:53:42 +0000 UTC]

Well yes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WonderfulTyrant In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 09:18:55 +0000 UTC]

Calling someone 'talented' is also a lazy way of 'complimenting' their work, without actually having to invest actual time, thought,  and the passion needed to delve into their work and actually help them grow as a creator.

It's a quick, standby response.

We are all guilty of it, and almost all of us have had it used that exact way, at least once, on us.

Anyone denying this is either a buffoon or just being obtuse for its own sake.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FeaelSilmarien In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 09:16:17 +0000 UTC]

What the author of this article forgets about is that there's not only artistic talent in this world. There are people who can learn to make art with less effort, so they're artistically talented; yet, as explained in this article, there are other people having no such innate ability, but still working hard and practising every day in order to improve - and this is a talent as well! Not everyone has such a will, and not everyone is able to develop it, so being able to do amazing art after years of improvement actually IS talent. Imho.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nikutsuki In reply to FeaelSilmarien [2014-06-25 10:22:50 +0000 UTC]

I agree with this, it's pretty much what I was thinking, too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WonderfulTyrant In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 09:15:22 +0000 UTC]

Talent, just as the legal definition of 'sanity' - is an opinion, and is relative to the observer. It really IS that simple. All the flowery language on this planet will not dispel that hard truth.

One demographic's work of genius is affronting to another demographic's. That's just the way it is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Wayleen In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:55:35 +0000 UTC]

I have the impression that someone who is really talented if he/she draws something and someone with no talent for art does and they both do the same drawing, the talented person will make you "feel" more - you know that feeling when you look at a piece of art and you feel strange suddenly, like raw inside, like the piece opened up a hidden box of feelings and emotions you had forgotten you had and you almost feel like crying? (sorry if this is not clear) when you look at his painting. Rather than the one of the "untalented" artist - but the latter will impress with his/her technique and still be amazing ! but to me, it doesn't feel the same. cuz art is not just pure technique, and practicing hours on and on is learning technique, but what's important is also a matter of vision, of... I don't know, stuff I don't get because I'm obviously not talented at art ! haha. Anyway, I don't wanna offend people, I'm just saying how I feel. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

psychobaam In reply to Wayleen [2014-06-25 09:21:27 +0000 UTC]

I understand what you're talking about. I think it's also some psychological tricks, proper usage of colors, composition. You can learn that stuff too. It's like with knowing what someone feels. Some people can tell it after a quick look on someone's face or pose, but some people don't get it and have to read some books and counciously recognize such things.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wayleen In reply to psychobaam [2014-06-26 10:34:33 +0000 UTC]

Yes, there is probably some of this, but it can't just be that, because I will feel stuff for one painting that others won't. But I see what you mean, it is a good argument. I dunno, I just think we can't be that definitive !!!! It does or it doesn't ! Let's just say it could ? I don't understand how the author of that article can be so incredibly sure of himself like there is no doubt and he just detains the truth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

psychobaam In reply to Wayleen [2014-06-26 13:01:21 +0000 UTC]

That's a really controvertial subject and there isn't a way to explore it like magnetic field or something like that (yet). If you're interested in how other artists see talent I really recommend you watching those two videos:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPY7d2… - this guy thinks that 'talent' has to do something with copying picuteres during childhood. After that you have that "sense" and you kinda feel where to put this or that.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLphU… - and there is little about specific cooperation between different parts of brain, but not with getting into science. Just a simple thought.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wayleen In reply to psychobaam [2014-06-28 11:35:06 +0000 UTC]

Hey, thanks for the links, it's very interesting !!  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlackShiya In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:53:17 +0000 UTC]

but talent does exist. Talent means we can learn something faster and do it better than everyone else around the same age.

though it means nothing without hard work.
I agree that praising someone "talented" in some circumstances is wrong, but saying everyone has no talent is also wrong because everybody does have their own talent.

have you ever seen those 3-5 years-old do some awesome hiphop dancing or maybe play difficult song on a piano? that's the work of talent and passion right there. Maybe with some hard work but seriously, they are children, they're not obliged to do some hard work, they just love it so much that even if they do it every hour they don't consider it as practice at all. On the other hand, WE count it as hard work. Each people have their own perspective y'know?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SamuraiTaiga In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:50:11 +0000 UTC]

Put two swimmers together, both Olympic level, both trained hard,yet one has a different body type from the other, one is a slightly different diet, slightly different metabolism. Even with equal training, they'll show differences in ability. Talent just happens to exist to a certain degree, sometimes it's worked on, sometimes it's improved upon, and sometimes it's wasted. One of my children is far better in visual arts than the other, and always has been. The other is better at music. Seeing my own children, it's impossible for me to deny the reality that "talent" is something real.

However, that doesn't mean it can't be achieved with hard work as well. I wouldn't say "always" though, because some talents appear to be so unique, so weird, you just have to wonder where and how such an ability could come to be. Getting upset over it is just silly IMHO.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ziginz In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:37:56 +0000 UTC]

Talent can refer to the natural capacity of a person to do something, otherwise known as potential. For instance even if I wanted to be a great singer, that doesn't mean I have the potential to do so where as I do have the potential to be a writer. I'm an advocate of finding something you are both good at an enjoy and then work your ass off to become the best you can at it. Everyone has a talent; find it and then work your ass off to be the best you can be at it. God gave me these hands for the writing, so by God that's what imma gonna do.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

benniwinks In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:37:42 +0000 UTC]

I am not so sure you two get each others points, 
on one hand its right stating that some children/adults have a predesposition for something. A good connection between the two halfs of the brain, the eyes and hands is quite helpfull. Even so it is not possible to achieve anything without hard work.

But the main point of the conversation should not be wheter talent exists or not. What really is of interest should be the reaction produced in the other person by beeing told that he/she is gifted.

To get to the point:
It doesn´t really matter if talent exists or not (I personally believe there is something like talent, but its also influenced by the socio-cultural upbringing and the expiriences of each ones lives) but rather how do we convey what we really mean.

Telling a person he is talented may be a good coment, he will hopefully understand, but telling the exact same thing to a child can produce totally different results.
I dont want to go into all the details but i agree with the proposed idea of changing the way to speak/encourage people. 
It doesn´t harm anyone to think a little more about what we are acually saying with what we say. 

Thanks for bringing up the topic and posting such a thought through chain of ideas.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Zerotrance In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:30:11 +0000 UTC]

Hmmm, very interesting...

You know, I can see it both ways, and ultimately, I think both sides of the argument have their good points. It's true, many great artists were not at their greatest level of skill when they first started. Personally, when I was younger I wouldn't really consider myself an artist. I distinctly remember drawing circular, chinless heads and rectangular feet, producing work just barely above the level of stick figures. But I loved drawing. So I kept doing it. And while I'm certainly no master now, I'm a lot better than when I was a child. I find myself constantly observing other artists and their styles, trying my best to take in the details and the techniques and adapt them to myself. With practice, I got better at something that I ultimately wasn't very good at to begin with.

But then there's the other side. One thing I definitely do not have the knack for is mathematics. I loathe the subject. If I really push myself to study and practice, then I can do pretty well, but it is a large mental strain and I don't enjoy it in the slightest. I'm sure if I really took the time to apply myself, I could become a very proficient mathematician. But overall, I know that the process would be amazingly unpleasant and I'd just be wasting my trying to learn something I have no interest or no immediate need for. True, practicing art can be frustrating as well, but at least I'm doing what I love, and I won't mind learning from the mistakes.

Here's the point I'm trying to get at. We all have potential, but ultimately, some things are just going to click with other people more than other things. Maybe "talent" isn't exactly meant to be stated as a level of natural, innate skill, but more so as someones mental disposition and what they more easily connect with. People just naturally take to certain activities or skills better. Ideally, we could all be astrophysicists, if we put the effort into it. Realistically, that's not going to be the case. And that's probably for the best. Everyone needs to contribute where they are strongest, because everyone is different.

So bottom line, it depends on the individual. No one starts out a great artist, true. Practice does make progress, true. But in the end, more often than not, we're only going to truly become proficient in something that deeply connects with us personally. Does that make sense? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mr-rukan-san In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:28:15 +0000 UTC]

I could not agree more!
I can speak from personal experience as someone who has always been "good at drawing" i've been "praised" for my "talent" sense basically preschool.. people always told me how good i was at drawing that i'm really "talented"....

i come from a family of artists.. on both sides.. so i guess i really have it in my genes.. but that doesn't mean i didn't have to work hard to get to the point where i feel good about my art..it took years of trying different styles and techniques and conscious effort to get to where i am now..and i'm still nowhere near where i wanna be...i know i can get better and thats fun! haha

its not just as easy as being "talented" 
its more about skill and style and technique and so on..
some people may have it easier to get good at certain things but  i believe anyone can be good at anything as long as they try hard enough! <3 

i will continue this rant in my own journal haha 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TTSnim In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:12:03 +0000 UTC]

I know some one who believes they are "Gifted" with talents and skills above others.  That personn is unhappy, and the moment a project fails they dash off to the next thing.  It saddens me to watch. T_T 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lustanjo In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 07:57:00 +0000 UTC]

Exactly!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TD-Vice In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 07:48:40 +0000 UTC]

This is wrong. Very, very wrong.

Talent does exist, if we define it in purely biological terms. Talent is your physio-psychological affinity for a certain task. In case of visual arts, it's a combination of tightly connected motoric skills with an ability to process visual information in a manner that allows for a quick analysis of that information and relegation of it via aforementioned motoric skills. In simpler terms, to be a good artist you need to have a biologically predetermined good connection between your eyes, your hands, your brain and memory.

For some reason, in other human activity, nobody argues that. Nobody argues that to be a basketball player you need to have a (biologically determined!) height and coordination. That to be a good musician you have to have good hearing and again, correlation of that with motoric skills. That black sprinters are so fast because the biology of their muscle tissue. That Formula 1 drivers have naturally better reflexes than Joe aveage, as well as fighter jet pilots.

But somehow, art, something that is very complex as a physiological act, is for everyone. Everyone can do it with a little hard work.

I call bullshit.

Hard work isnt a panacea. THAT is the biggest myth. Of course, honing a natural talent is important. A talent will rot if not used up. The runner's muscles would lose tone without training, and a violinists fingers will become clumsy if he doesnt play. But telling people that they can achieve any limits with "hard work" is as damaging, if not more, as only praising their innate talent.

Let me break a few eggs here. Most of the commenters on the article are talentless kids who had been drawing the same anime/furry/fanart with horrible quality and a lack of skill and their chorus of "OH YEAH, IVE IMPROVED SO MUCH WITH TEH HARD WERK" is absolutely hilarious, because well, it's easy to see that no amount of "hard work" saved them for lacking natural intuition. My point is simple - you wont ever be able to draw somethinv on the scale of say, Rembrandt, even if every waking hour you dedicate to practice while having a weak predisposition towards visual arts. You will get better, you might even achieve a level of acceptable craftsmanship, but that is it.

Talent, essentially is a limit line that lies further from the average limit line. It means that a person with talent, with the same amount of practice as an untalented person, will go farther - the limit of their capability lies further away. That the point where practice brings improvement is farther on the timeline.

Telling people that their natural limits are equal, is very bad and damaging. At one hand, its insulting - it says that everyone is the same, that there is no diversity in humans. If that was the case tho, we'd have tons of astrophysicists - universities are crammed with people studying math, but 90% of them don't have what it takes, that uniqueness of biology that allows them to conceptualize and calculate what others cannot. Everyone works hard, but only a handful persist - and usually it's those people that showed visible affinity for such activities in childhood.

The other point why it is damaging to regard "hard work" higher on the scale as natural talent, is because it sets false expectations and hopes for people. People waste time, money and effort, their health and nerves on trying to compete on an equal footing with those, who have a natural predisposition and are as hardworking. You're telling a midget to compete in a race with a 1,8m tall man. But see, the midget can reach their limits, they can start running much faster than other midgets, but they won't grow 1,2 meter long legs with practice. And they'll loose the race.

In the art world, this line of thinking results in people leaving college with poor work, but certificates that tell them they are artists. But then, the employers turn them down, because believe it or not, its EASILY percieved when an art is a stroke of geniuine talent and skill, and when - a painful, drilled approach to quality, squeezed out in throes of overcoming a natural hindrance. These people are lost. They should've been told at the start to find a field of activity where they shine with grace, and not bang their heads over a wall that is not meant for them to climb over.

Quality, inspired, great art requires BOTH natural talent and practice. When you substract either of those foundations, your building crumbles. And you can't build it with only one ingredient either. And another important thing - natural talent makes hard work a JOY in the first place. Talented people improve bester and faster because they feel that practice yields results, they feel that hard work is getting and wilk get them somewhere. On the other hand, for people without a natural predisposition, it's often a daunting and frustrating task since they dont have that inuitive feedback coming from their own practice. Ive heard the "I try and I try, baww, but I just dont know where Im doing wrong!" sentiment so often, and thats the case. Hard work won't help them much because of that, because there is no natural fluidity from the process - it's a struggle, and more often than not, a fruitless one.

We should acknowledge, that art, as any other human activity, is NOT FOR EVERYBODY. 

Find your own paths, people, or dont be surprised when you fail.

*EDIT

And one small thing to add about the "draw again" meme that you've used to illustrate your point. That is a picture-perfect case of false equivalency here. In these memes, people compare their CHILDHOOD drawings (from age 10-14) with the drawings from their late teenagehood/adulthood even full adulthood (17-30) years. It takes an especially ham-handed person to draw for a decade and still remain at point A, even if they have zero talent.
What should've been shown, is a comparison of several people's artworks at a certain age (say eleven years) and then these same people's works at 21. That would be a more correct illustration of your point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 9

Nhizyr In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 10:51:27 +0000 UTC]

Hello. ouo I would like to say that I see your point, but also add that hard work doesn't equal hard work. You can work in a way that gets you improvement fast, or in a way that it gets you improvement slowly, depending on the methods you do employ to practise. Improving slowly doesn't have to mean you don't possess the talent for it, it might just mean your method is not optimal. Or that you do not accept criticism well enough, that your mindset doesn't allow you to grow faster. All these things CAN be developed.
Secondly, with a midget it's obvious that their legs are not as long as those of a 2m tall man and that they thus have a disadvantage. But how do you recognize that in someone who wants to be an artist? Maybe you are right, and I think you are, to an extend - that some might not have the same natural ability as others; but art is so incredibly subjective, and employs such a range of skills, that you simply don't have to be in equal footing on this certain talent as this other person. You don't have to be perfect at every aspect of something to enjoy doing it, you don't have to be perfect to get a job, don't have to be a master to enjoy the process of learning and creating. For me personally, I'd say that if you love doing it (and this is the most important thing for me), and if you really want to improve and willing to put hard work into it, you will most certainly get somewhere, no matter how talented or untalented you are. 

You can look at my gallery too btw I don't draw furries n p n ) 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to Nhizyr [2014-06-25 11:07:41 +0000 UTC]

"You can work in a way that gets you improvement fast, or in a way that it gets you improvement slowly, depending on the methods you do employ to practise" - I sort of agree, but that's very much an individual thing. In my opinion, as someone who unfortunately was self-taught, and hadn't received a formal art education, improvement happens when you challenge your comfort boundaries, and then when learning a new skill-set, solidify that knowledge in your method. So it's not the amount of work that matters, you're right, but rather the methodology applied. However, there still are limits. The longer your improvement takes, the less likely the improvement will be drastic. It's highly unlikely for someone who barely improved over the course of years to suddenly leap to a fantastic new height or achieve noticeble increase in skills *cough*tom preston*cough*

How do you recognize it? I dunno. I just do. Maybe that's my great natural talent - to separate great art from decent and from very very ppor.

"you will most certainly get somewhere, no matter how talented or untalented you are" - but that is the question, really. Where? I personally do not currently pursue an artistic career, however I still strive for improvement, because I KNOW I hadn't reached my limits yet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nhizyr In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 11:22:54 +0000 UTC]

Yeah true that, but all I'm saying is, if you really wanna do it then it sure as hell is worth the way, even if it's a hard and long one! >u< 
Also with Tom Preston, remember how I just wrote "maybe they don't accept criticism well enough", uhm... You know. ;u; BUT ALSO! HE works in the industry, successfully, with fans and all, and that despite you just having labeled him as untalented. ouo

Oooh no I didn't mean how do you separate good art from bad art, but rather how do you separate between people that do have talent, albeit unrefined, that would just need the right kind of practise - from those that don't have enough talent to be decent at the thing?

I dunno where it'll get you, you never do know until you try it do you? :'D 

Ah! And I'd just like to give a personal example. Not about art, although I'm an artist, but rather about my social skill! So I'm a very shy and introvert person, I have a natural dislike for groups of more than 3 people I would say - or maybe it's not natural, maybe it's a thing from childhood, I don't know. BUT, despite my unfortunate disposition, I've made a lot of progress during the past 2 years simply because I kept challenging myself. And even though it's really super exhausting and hard for me to do, and I know I'll never be as sociable as them naturally sociable people (or are they?), I still won't give up on it, because I just really really want to improve, no matter the cost. Just to a point where I can be happy. ouo I'm certain all of us can reach a point where we can be happy. Maybe that point would still be somewhere below average, but what does it matter how you compare to others.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to Nhizyr [2014-06-25 11:32:21 +0000 UTC]

No, dude, no! Tom Preston doesn't work sucessfully in the industry - he's self-employed! Being self-employed, especially in his case, makes one a failure in the industry - even the reviewer nerds he worked for stopped comissioning him, and all his "books" were self-published as well. That's like, the opposite of success) I'd fucking kill myself if I was forced to be self-employed in my field.

I dunno how, but it's evident. Art can have mistakes and white spots, but the fact that it's done by someone who's hand is friends with their eyes, is always visible. And vice versa, it's visible when someone just slaved a lot over a piece, achieved a nice result, but you know that they won't be able to replicate it - case in point, all those artists who re-draw celebrity portraits in pencil with high realism. They have the skill, certainly - but when they try to draw a person from scratch, you see that they have the talent to be a copy-machine, but not an artist.

Being sociable isn't a talent and doesn't require a predisposition. People love to call themselves "introverts" and "shy" when in reality they just had self-esteem issues, but that, though determined by psychology, is a whole different can of worms, that I don't think has much to do with your hardwiring between the hand, brain and eyes)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nhizyr In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 11:40:28 +0000 UTC]

Why is being self-employed a failure? I'd quite like to be self-employed. O . o ) I mean different things work for different people, right?

Hmm... I feel like you are making a point that my Mum keeps making! Haha. That you can hone your craft, but that you have to have some... let's call it creative drive, fantasy, inspiration, own ideas - to apply this craft to the end that is art. Is that what you mean...?

Hmm, no? Well, I don't know much about biology honestly, but the point I was trying to make I think works anyway. That if you really wanna do something, even if you're not in the best of places to achieve it, it's still worth giving it a shot! 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to Nhizyr [2014-06-25 11:42:59 +0000 UTC]

It's a failure because it necessarily means that noone else wants you in their projects. I mean if you're a teen, in college or something, it's ok. But if you're past 30 and you're trying to live off ad revenue for a shitty comic you keep on a public website, not even your own, then eh... it's fail.

Not a creative drive or ideas even, but being able to draw without anyone holding and guiding your hand.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nhizyr In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 11:51:19 +0000 UTC]

But it doesn't have to mean that? ö3ö Maybe he just likes having no boss, maybe being self-employed just is what works for him! Or maybe he's still searching for an employer that he's happy with. Why does it matter if others want to employ you anyway? What matters is that you get your stuff out there, that you're happy with what you're doing, and that you somehow get enough money together to survive and continue doing what you love! xd That's what I think anyway. 

Hmm, you mean like... independance then? Being able to take responsibility for yourself and your art and knowing what needs to be done to improve and-- ... I feel like this is not what you mean, because on all those things you can work as well. > . >

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nikutsuki In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 10:51:09 +0000 UTC]

I agree so much with you. This is a really interesting point of view and absolutely worth reading.

Whenever a friend complains that they can't draw, I want to see them try. I can notice that some of them have certain skills that will help them to quickly become better at drawing, but they've never invested much time in it, maybe because they don't like it that much, aren't passionate about it. If you don't practice, talent alone won't bring you far, but practice without any talent is quite pointless as well (except you really love drawing and want to do it for fun; there's nothing wrong with that as long as you're aware that you won't become a Botticelli).

Also, I wanted to add that I see the after-and-before memes as an interesting and fun exercise to remind yourself that you can always do better, and should never cease to look for mistakes over and over again in order to avoid making them next time. And I also think those memes make more sense when comparing works that are not that far apart in time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to nikutsuki [2014-06-25 11:00:24 +0000 UTC]

"except you really love drawing and want to do it for fun; there's nothing wrong with that as long as you're aware that you won't become a Botticelli" - there's nothing wrong in doing something for self-satisfaction. It becomes wrong when you're blind to your limitations and people telling you that you just need to push harder.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nikutsuki In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 11:07:09 +0000 UTC]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to nikutsuki [2014-06-25 11:36:21 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DarkRukia91 In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 10:01:38 +0000 UTC]

Interesting comment and I agree. 
I commented earlier about the whole left/right (artist/scientific) brain thing that I've heard before but wasnt sure about it (until someone else explained it a bit). But I can see where you're going with this,you've might have just answered my question (sorry cant think at the moment it's about 3am where I'm at lol I'm almost afraid to comment) Anyway thanks for getting in depth about it. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to DarkRukia91 [2014-06-25 10:09:00 +0000 UTC]

No prob. I think it goes quite more complex than left/right dichotomy (brains are a bit less dissected in terms of their operating capabilities), but indeed, people are predisposed to different things, and there's nothing shameful about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

VioletKy In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 09:59:54 +0000 UTC]

As drawer for hobby I fell to agree with you. I had my personal crush with lack of talent some years ago and not couse someone told me "you are not talented ". I saw the difference between my works and other people ones and just realized that I missed some very important skills.
By the way I'm keep drawing for fun. I like it and If I put efford on it I'll make decent stuff XD Surely better than two years ago but far far away from something that can be called "artistic".

I only don't agree with you when you say that all human activity aren't for everybody... Everybody can do anithing but with the conciousness of their own limits.
I don't like the tone of the comment too... it's quite like condescending and I think it's not the same as be honest. You can say things honestly without be rough and maybe other people will appreciate it much more.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to VioletKy [2014-06-25 10:06:14 +0000 UTC]

When I say "isn't for everybody" I don't mean that people should be BANNED for doing art. What I mean is simply that not everybody who draws will be a good, or even decent artist.

The "anybody can be anything" is a very harmful mindset. I mean yeah, the world doesn't care if someone is a great artist, or a really unskilled amateur in art. But what about other activities? Our lives are damaged because there are: a) untalented doctors, b)incompetent lawyers, c) unfit firefighters, and etc. No. Everyone shouldn't try to a bust a nut and get into activity they're not meant to - it might cause actual, substantial harm, and it actually happens every fucking day.

Sure, anyone can draw for fun. But it doesn't mean that the result will be objectively good, and it's it's not objectively good or decent, then it doesn't hold artistic value, in my opinion.

If you don't like the tone, sunshine, you really SHOULDN'T be in ANY industry. The real world is harsh, and people will be rough.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

VioletKy In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 10:37:33 +0000 UTC]

Interesting stuff  but I think is not a problem of people who tries to do something; the real problems is that you only need a little pice of sheet to be a doctor or whethever you want to be. No one cares if you are really motivated and skilled enough to do that. There isn't any type of control on that.
I mean... a simple example: I will be a teacher one day and the only thing I'm doing at the moment is studing lots of issues and pass all the exams... that don't proove that I'm quilify to be a teacher, that I'm able to teach something to someone else. Only proove that I have studied for the exams. But it seems all it needs.

About the real world I don't care if is harsh or not: I don't see any reason couse people HAVE TO BE rough. If the world is harsh don't mean we must be harsh each others. Whant to be rough? Just your choice.
I will not be hurt if you call me sunshine or wathever you like.
I just give you an advice: keep calm is better. If you don't care just pass trhough and ignore it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BananaSnail In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 09:32:31 +0000 UTC]

I never thought about the "draw me again" meme's like that before.
Jeez... that does put things on a different perspective. 
Well, thanks, for bringing that point up. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to BananaSnail [2014-06-25 09:35:00 +0000 UTC]

NP. It's quite evident that the comparison of a progress of a person from 16 to 20 years of drawing with a person from 10 to 30 years of drawing, will yield different results even if their starting skills are matched.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RoadZero In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 09:46:29 +0000 UTC]

Was there really a 30 years person?..

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 09:58:14 +0000 UTC]

yup. the anime cat-lady. There was a comparison between 1989 and 2011 (22 years, and I'm sure that the earliest picture was about at 10 years of the person's age, so yeah, the artist was around 30 when he drew the last pic).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RoadZero In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 10:53:09 +0000 UTC]

"Left: When I was 15 years old.
Right: More than 2 decades later."
Not 10 and not even 30, it seems.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 10:56:19 +0000 UTC]

yup. more than that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RoadZero In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 09:10:21 +0000 UTC]

Besides, the whole article seems to be about "While calling someone talented, don't forget their talent won't be opened without their hard work".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 09:17:06 +0000 UTC]

I can't help but think that in many cases "hard work" isn't as hard as people tell it is, though)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RoadZero In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 09:02:18 +0000 UTC]

I can't agree with the part "...as any other human activity, is NOT FOR EVERYBODY. " Most of basic humans activities are for everybody. People write blogs though they're not pro writers. People draw though they're not pro artists. Sometimes, people try to compose music without any real knowledge about it. People run and race for fun. Etc, etc. Humans are creative, and the more different tasks you put on your brain in young age, the more developed it becomes.

Here on dA I heard a story of a person who was considered talentless by their art teacher as a kid, but now that person draws demanded digital works of high quality, and earns decent money from commissions.

Even the "natural intuition" can be developed. Our brains are able to learn the "core" of the activity. I believe this ability of deep learning only depends on your general intellect. And general intellect depends on the intensity of learning different things in youngest years.

About going to art college just because you like drawing, well, that's really unfortunate. But it happens all the time when people take on the jobs they're not really suited to. There are mediocre doctors, nervous teachers, forgetful farmaceuts. It's because strongly talented people are rare. And the demand on named specialists is higher than the amount of naturally gifted people. The demand on artists is relatively low, though, and one should consider it while choosing the career.
To those who think they should go to art colledge, I'd say, there's no need to if you don't have inspiration to do original and new things on a pro level. One can aquire a self-satisfying art skill without any colledge today. As well as writing skill, translating skill, basic programming skill. Most people are more or less multitalented, and choosing an "official" education for something you won't be able to learn yourself, like medicine, is more rational IMO.

And yeah, art colledges are full of hard work for a reason.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 09:14:23 +0000 UTC]

When I say "isn't for everybody" I don't mean that people should be BANNED for doing art. What I mean is simply that not everybody who draws will be a good, or even decent artist.

Your comment just proves that. There's a reason why "blog writers" aren't journalists. There's a reason why people who doodle in their school sketchbooks, remaind on the level of doodling, and why people who play basketball in their neighborhood court don't end in the NBA. That reason is, that while they can enjoy the activity, they're NOT BUILT TO EXCEL IN IT. That's not a hard concept to grasp. I'm good at drawing and writing - my parents once tried to get me in music, and while I learned to play complex pieces on the piano with some fluidity, I HATED it - I'm absolutely tone-deaf, and I feel no passion for it (because of my natural hindrance), and I sure as fuck will never be a composer. But I like listening to music and singing in the shower  - does that make me viable for Russia Got Talent show, then?

"considered talentless by her art teacher, but now she draws demanded digital works of high quality, and earns decent money from commissions" - that is not an argument for anything. We don't know anything about the teacher. We don't know anything about the person. And those "demanded digital works of high quality" might be terrible furry porn, for all I know. Please don't use such strawmen cases to argue your point.

"Even the "natural intuition" can be developed. Our brains are able to learn the "core" of the activity. I believe this ability of deep learning only depends on your general intellect. And general intellect depends on the intensity of learning different things in youngest years" - that is untrue. Natural intuition is a biological factor, and as I've stated, it's the way your body is hardwired, essentially. You cannot rewire your body. If you're born without legs, you won't be swimmer, even if your brain is flexible enough. Concerning art, the brain can definitely learn to mimic a process. I've seen many artists try to mimic naturally-gifted artists' styles and themes - and many of them actually succeeded. But guess what separated these "untalented, but hard-working people" from those they mimicked? Their RIGIDNESS. They are replicators of a process, but not the PROGENITORS of the process. While the talented person could switch the technique, venture into a different style, think up new exciting angles and such, the mimickers could only, well, replicate. They could'nt start something themselves, in their own vein.

So yeah, that's it. People sure anough can aquire a self-satifsfying art skill. But it doesn't mean that this art skill will be an OBJECTIVELY decent level of skill. Just, as you pointed out, self-satisfying. I'm satisfied with my shower-singing for sure.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1