RoadZero In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 09:40:23 +0000 UTC]

I mostly commented this phrase because I wanted to make your statement more precise. Because it needed that.

It's not a furry porn, believe me Just realistically looking characters with complicated desings and pretty dynamic poses. I used the case because that's the case I know.

No, brains aren't hardwired, although most of our body is. By some reason you miss this point, and I suppose you just didn't happen to know about how learning process changes the brain structure. So, I can't agree that some things are solemly "biological factors". Besides, how can you tell if the person who went from mimicking to creating was "naturally gifted" from the beginning or just developed their brain? Or do you think this just can't happen?

" 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." - the key word is "absolutely". If you were, say, 50%-70% tone-deaf, you still could upgrade yourself up to 75% and other things will go with mimicking. But you still wouldn't be a 100% replicator with that low, but not absolutely low talent of yours.

I mean...talent is not binary. Though I do agree with your "midget in the race" example, we're talking about a whole bunch of people having different "height" here. And most of them aren't midgets nor long-legs. They're just mediocre and have a little bit of this or that talent visible but sleeping in them. Like a carrot in the soil. And until they open it up with their hard work, we can't see if it's a big or a small talent, actually.

Hard work doesn't really mean "repeating the same thing more and more times until it becomes perfect". It means "getting to new heights", "jump over your own head".

Even if the person wasn't "built to excel in it", if that person has a strong reason to excel, that reason might be more important than giving up and doing what you're most capable of doing "naturally". The reason because doodling people don't become artists is: they don't have a real reason to do so. If that reason involves the process of official education or coming to a hearing show, I don't think it's needed to put such a person down.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 09:56:34 +0000 UTC]

I can't judge something without seeing it. So the case if void, since I don't have any means to verify it.

Brains are just another part of your body. There's nothing mystical about it. I could as easily suppose you don't happen to know about neurophysiology. Yes, the brain has amazing plasticity, but again, the plasticity is in it's own specific sets of coordinates. A person with an affinity for math will have their brain structure changed by learning math, but if they have no predisposition to say, the written word, the plasticity in that regard would be limited, compared to the plasticity for learning math. And it is a biological factor - structure, hormonal makeup, a lot of little different things that create a unique brain. A person with severe mental deficiency will never learn as much as someone we consider of "average intellect", though you can make them progress from pooping their pants to holding it in before they walk to the toilet. But you see the difference there?

My example about mimicking was about a specific action - not a completely essential in an artist's progress desire to copy what you like from it and grow from it, but mimicking as in painfully learning one available technique or skill set and sticking to it. That is purely work, and such a person cannot venture outside of this hard-learned basic. They can't ORIGINATE the skill, that's the point - they need a template for any move. They might learn to follow the template very close, but they cannot create the template from scratch.

Talent is not binary, I agree. But it still is there. And the proportions of the height chart are actually quite known statistically - the distribution is uneven. It's not like 10% of people have excellent talent, 10% of people have very good talent, 10% have good talent, 10% have above average talent, 10% have average and so on. It's much more abruptly curved - and the majority, quite above 50%, lie in the plane where they have NEAR ZERO talent for some activity. The "diversity" of heights isn't smooth, and it's pretty evident even on dA.

"The reason because doodling people don't become artists is: they don't have a real reason to do so" - why are you so sure that's it, and not the fact that they just don't have what it takes, biologically-wise? Even something as "hard work" is determined a lot by biology (but more by nurture, society, of course). I argue that people should pursue something that doesn't make them struggle in vain, and that people should learn to be self-aware and disillusioned to tell themselves "you know, this isn't for me. I'll do it for fun, but it's not my thing. I'll find something really mine to self-actualize".

And the journal OP argues that people should trick themselves into thinking they can "work hard" and achieve any limit they set. Well unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RoadZero In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 10:20:43 +0000 UTC]

I'm not putting anything mystical here. Hormones... did you know that with a hormonal background change you can suddenly find yourself not being able to think the way you did before, do the things you did before, but suddenly wishing to do better with some other skill you never really paid attention to develop? Of course, it's all in your "frame of capability", but we have wider "frames" than our daily activities allow us to practice.
A person may have 0 talent in something, but have 30%-50% of talent in tons of other activities, and then a hight talent in some single particular one - which they maybe don't even start to develop or try because their mom didn't like it or something. And after a hard struggle they end up in a profession which they like and are okay-skilled with, never reaching heights, never knowing they're capable of something which they don't even think of. Dats life.

People with mediocre talent are there, and I've seen a lot. They don't make wonderful and stunning things, but they still do something in their professional niche. They aren't super-original, yet they didn't struggle in vain to get where they are now. It's just that mediocre art is more clearly seen than, say, mediocre programming... but really, it happens in almost every professional field.

"why are you so sure that's it, and not the fact that they just don't have what it takes, biologically-wise?" - because reason is a strong motivation, and without motivation no one will go as far as achieving a new skill. If a person doesn't do anything new, it means there's no motivation, duh. Another motivation is money, yet a paying but hated activity won't get you far either...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 10:27:30 +0000 UTC]

"A person may have 0 talent in something, but have 30%-50% of talent in tons of other activities, and then a hight talent in some single particular one - which they maybe don't even start to develop or try because their mom didn't like it or something. And after a hard struggle they end up in a profession which they like and are okay-skilled with, never reaching heights, never knowing they're capable of something which they don't even think of. Dats life" - of course. But the fact that they didn't take up what they were made for, is their problem - it doesn't negate the fact that they were predisposed for that thing, nor does it negate that they delved into something they have less affinity for because of commodity. Life choices don't negate biology.

Essentially, we're arguing the same point anyway. I'm just saying that having no or little predisposition for a select activity sets you back so hard, that no amount or passion or hard work will make you catch up to those that have it and also apply practice. And if it is so, than talent most definitely exists, and that people should find their own talent instead of wasting time trying to achieve at least mediocrity for no reason at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RoadZero In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 10:44:49 +0000 UTC]

And I'm trying to say that "no or little predisposition" combined with actual desire to do the activity is rather rare. And that "trying to achieve at least mediocrity for no reason at all" is really pointless but if there is reason, then we maybe should leave these people to do what they think is best for them. If they fail, this will explain way more to them than worded explanations pushed on them by other people. If they achieve something, congrats to them. For some, a mediocre result in beloved activity is more happy achievement than a high result in not-so-liked activity they had talent to. And that means their effort wasn't fully a waste.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 10:58:17 +0000 UTC]

"And I'm trying to say that "no or little predisposition" combined with actual desire to do the activity is rather rare." I wouldn't say so, at least in the modern age. A lot of kids, through their exposure to various forms of media, are dragged somewhat in pursuing that. And people who tell them "oh you totally gonna be a famous mangaka in Japan and make ur own Naruto, just work hard, pursue ur dreamz", aren't helping that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RoadZero In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 11:16:07 +0000 UTC]

Nah, this desire might burn up in a year. Until they really have a story to tell. Depends on a person, on the importance of that story and blah~
I have no idea if I'm talented, though I felt a blessed art kid in middle school for a while. But sometimes I have weeks and months of losing awareness of how to draw and put colours. Still, I do have a thing or two to tell, so I'm not leaving it. That simple. Drawing for the sake of drawing and be a cool mangaka/artist hardly can be that motivating.

In Japan, kids are exposed to even heavier visual media experiences, and "mysteriously" their people can more or less draw things which are better than our average level. Even if they aren't artists. So, early training helps developing a tiny hidden potential best,it seems. And also, the person with higher intellect supposedly is able to look good in more activities than someone whose intellect wasn't developed by studying and stuff. Well, it seems to be a whole other topic, but it's partially a social, not purely biological factor.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 11:22:16 +0000 UTC]

But your art IS still 90% manga-ish) Maybe that's what's stiffling you.

I wouldn't say that "their people" draw things which are better than our average level. You'd need a deep statistical research to prove that - and by the way, how do you tell if that's not just template mimicking? It's an unfounded on anything argument. There's a fine line between art and craftsmanship. So it's unclear what early education actually does. It's a known fact that foreign language learning indeed should be conducted as early as possible, but artisticwise? Have no idea.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RoadZero In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 11:47:06 +0000 UTC]

Yep, we here step onto the fields of unknown. I believe in the powah of early education but I'm not sure , if it works in any field or not, if there's a way of understanding if a good-drawing kid is talented or just skilled...
We mimic this or that in our art often at least partially without even realising it, because brain works with recombining past experiences a lot.
General creativity may or may not come with an intuition of how to draw/compose/etc., it's a different matter.

Mangaish or not, anatomy and colour theory is still pretty much the same. Talented or not, I'll do dumb repetitive non-creative exercises, just as real art students do (100 sketches a week rule, no matter how talented you are, is pushed on students of our local colledge) and solve it - because reasons, haha. I wonder if I should try and move to more realistic style in future, though...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

StarryKite In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:37:35 +0000 UTC]

I totally and completely agree with your comment, I just don't have a thing to add.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to StarryKite [2014-06-25 08:46:30 +0000 UTC]

I'm glad that my point was seen)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

StarryKite In reply to TD-Vice [2014-06-25 12:48:59 +0000 UTC]

How can it not be seen? XD Of course, hard work is essential but all of us are born with different (yes) talents.
My talent is different (I am absolutely no artist, but I'm a translator in-training), and even though I had to spend years practicing my foreign language skills with a private teacher (because language classes in most Russian schools are pathetic), I don't start playing the "ohmygosh they don't see how much I worked, what morons!" drama when others say I'm a natural. Because first of all, why not, some people just have a good sense of language and are quick to master foreign ones. Besides, translators are sorta born, especially interpreters - because it's not just "drilling the languages hard so you can know them", it means posessing a great memory, nerves of iron and being able to think and shape thoughts REALLY fast. Not everyone was simply born with a suitable nervous system, just like not everyone is born with a body to be a great basketball player. And those who are not suitable for such a job may "work hard" and try, of course - but they WON'T BE HAPPY, and the stress will ruin their psyche.
And second, because it IS a compliment - it means that I'm cool enough to be noticed and that - this is important! - that I made the right choice to follow this path years ago. I think that rather than feeding kids with an unrealistic idea that they can "achieve everything if they work hard" we should allow them to find their true element and inspire them to follow this path.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to StarryKite [2014-06-25 17:04:25 +0000 UTC]

О, землячка) Ну да, в целом согласен. Но это ж американцы в основном, их учат же что домохозяйка может стать президентом (хотя этого и не происходит).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Wayleen In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 08:34:54 +0000 UTC]

This is said with a condescending tone but I agree with him. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TD-Vice In reply to Wayleen [2014-06-25 08:45:29 +0000 UTC]

My tone isn't as much as condescending as it's honest. A lot of people's problems nowadays stem from the fact that others are not honest with them - everyone is concerned with "precious feels" than with honesty.

Art is a such a big thing because we are visual creatures, out perception forms of 80% sight and then all other senses - naturally, that our media is visual or audiovisual. As the pervasiveness of different forms of media gets higher, people venture in that field more and more, because the society builds around it. So naturally, a lot of people pursue artistic careers. Point is, a lot of them do it because they're tricked into thinking that they have what it takes for it. Thing is, we all love to draw as kids, but that love doesn't necessarily is founded on talent or is it transferabble into a career choice. Professionalism in any field is separated from hobby by the fact that you can produce stable quality of something, and a certain degree of that quality.

If you don't meet those ends, if your product is lacking, then unfortunately, you're not an artist, a painter, an illustration artist, a concept designer - you're just someone who dabbles in it with varying results.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AllgemeinBlut-Reich In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 07:47:11 +0000 UTC]

When I compliment someone in that way I normally just say: "Wow, you are a very skilled artist".
Using a word such as 'talent' is basically saying: "Wow, you didn't have to work hard to be this great at all."
Lol, it's a little funny when I see comments like that. Though they do mean well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

darknightskies In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 07:34:22 +0000 UTC]

I always felt weird whenever someone tells me I'm talented, but I was never sure why. This totally makes sense!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PandaTearz In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 07:25:52 +0000 UTC]

So true!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EmphasizeDarkness In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 07:20:09 +0000 UTC]

Really the problem here is saying someone is talented when they achieve something.If you said something like "wow you really worked hared for this, congtratulations" then it wouldnt be a problem.
I do believe there is talent and there is genius.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

outsidelogic In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 07:03:01 +0000 UTC]

So I'm curious: do you believe this as absolutely as you state it here?  "Talent is a myth"?  Do you believe that there is no inherent difference in artistic ability between people, and that the different skill levels and vision we all observe is really just a matter of dedication and hard work?  That I could be a Leonardo or a Rembrandt if I just worked harder?  I would have to disagree with that.  Some people are just born with more gifts than others; I think most parents would agree.

"Talk to anyone who, as a child, was constantly told they were gifted at something, only to give up on that thing when they could no longer sustain being accidentally gifted in adolescence. It's an enormous problem in school classrooms and is one of the many failures of our reward-based learning methodology."

Sorry, but as a parent with two kids in school, I have to disagree strongly with this statement.  One of the big problems in schools is that truly gifted kids are not accommodated.  Advanced classes are stuffed with kids who have been told they are gifted, but don't actually get the material, while the few gifted kids are bored and not learning anything.  Many classes are dumbed down to support the "you can do anything if you work hard" philosophy.  That's generally a positive message, but it masks the fact that there are truly extraordinary people among us...not just hard workers, but exceptionally talented and/or intelligent people...and their gifts should be recognized, celebrated, and nourished.

👍: 0 ⏩: 4

WhiteRaven90 In reply to outsidelogic [2014-06-25 09:44:14 +0000 UTC]

That latter problem has a very complex foundation under it, pinning it on one component doesn't seem very fair. Also i do agree with the author (not 100%). Ditch the word "talent", replace it with "potential" if you so wish to think alternatively. Interest, motivation, being at the right place at the right time, hearing the right things, being influenced by others, these are the kind of things that matter and together they overpower variations in human genetics. Genetics may be one distantly related factor, sure. You may be genetically predisposed to get lung cancer and still die of something else, so that's how little it would contribute to the outcome. On the other hand, you can certainly get lung cancer if you work hard enough to get one.

Having a kid doesn't automatically make parents experts on the topic. In fact having kids easily clouds judgement, as is the case with everything you emotionally invest in. You put much emphasis on the fact that *parents* share your opinion, which puts the opinion in a certain light.

So many people and their kids are unhappy, unfulfilled, because they chase success and not happiness.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

outsidelogic In reply to WhiteRaven90 [2014-06-25 14:50:50 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, certainly being a parent does not immediately convey expertise.  But we do get a very detailed look at human lives as soon as they emerge from the womb and we get to witness their development every step of the way.  And most parents I know place a lot more stock in genetic variance than non-parents do.  There are huge differences in individuals that manifest themselves almost immediately after birth.  And we often feel powerless to direct their development.  I'm sure there's an emotional aspect to that, but it's not the whole story.

"So many people and their kids are unhappy, unfulfilled, because they chase success and not happiness."  Yes, agreed...in fact we moved out of an affluent, achievement-focused area to a more relaxed environment across the country, primarily for that reason.  People were pushing their kids too hard.  "It's just high school.  Relax" is an oft-repeated phrase in our house.  So I like your statement, but I don't think it's necessarily relevant to the debate.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WhiteRaven90 In reply to outsidelogic [2014-06-27 03:10:46 +0000 UTC]

Well... you have your opinion, i have mine, and i don't think they are very incompatible with each other - and before i get kids or anything i'd need to be responsible for, i'd first like to sort my own self out. So at the moment i can't add anything else to the discussion.

No, i don't think the last sentence was too relevant either, but it is relevant a bit. Not sure any more why, though, i lost my train of thought :I

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TD-Vice In reply to outsidelogic [2014-06-25 08:16:44 +0000 UTC]

Spot on. This philosophy is as damaging as telling everyone that they are special snowflakes, because one day reality will come crushing at their door in form of bills and need of self-sustenance, and all they will have is their "hard work".

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pietotheface In reply to outsidelogic [2014-06-25 08:07:27 +0000 UTC]

Absolutely.

The old saw about being able to do anything if you work hard. It's a half-truth; you can do anything you set your mind to, but maybe not very well. Being told you're good at something doesn't negate the hard work you put into it. It just means that you're good at what you do.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MustacheElm In reply to outsidelogic [2014-06-25 07:21:39 +0000 UTC]

"That I could be a Leonardo or a Rembrandt if I just worked harder?"

Yes. Yes, absolutely. Leonardo and Rembrandt, among others, were incredible artists because they worked hard. You can tell when you look at their sketches. They drew everything they could in order to understand the world around them, and therefore their art went beyond technique into a language. And anyone can do that if they work just as hard. I promise you, I've seen it.

As for your anecdote about a classroom, I don't have a response for that. But I do know that you become a great artist through working hard and caring about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

outsidelogic In reply to MustacheElm [2014-06-25 14:54:44 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, I just don't agree.  Those two artists, as well as people like Mozart, Beethoven, Isaac Newton, Einstein...they weren't just the hardest workers; they were extraordinarily gifted people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Curulin In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 06:17:22 +0000 UTC]

This is just- so perfect, you said everything about this topic someone can say ; u ;
Thank you for pointing everything out the way you did it! 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

rats-xp In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 06:07:05 +0000 UTC]

i totally agree, and i am also at fault for doing the same thing :/
i never realized how differently people could take my comments from their intended positive message/encouragement
thought, i do try to point out their specific details about their art piece that i find beautiful and well done, and i will even ask how they got the effects they got, to see if i could teach myself the same thing
i am glad i found this journal, and i intend to learn from it, so thank you for posting it
i never intend to tair someone down, i try to encourage them and let them know that what they did was well done and that they can always go back to it later and work on it again when they feel they are able to improve and correct any mistakes they believed they had made on the piece

......um, i hope you can understand what i'm trying to say, because sometimes it just seems like i'm rambling and that seems to confuse people

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cakecrumbs In reply to rats-xp [2014-06-25 06:20:57 +0000 UTC]

Of course! There is much to be said for the way it is said. I mean for someone like you who comments on other things aside from 'you're so talented!' I can't assume anyone feeling annoyed by it. The kind that seems to upset most people is the "You're so talented/I could never do that/you're so lucky" combination. For even the most tolerant among us, you hear that enough and you start feeling like saying "does anyone know how long this took me to learn how to do?"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wafflerp In reply to cakecrumbs [2014-06-25 07:27:24 +0000 UTC]

omigosh!! that's what I felt...
I am really annoyed when people said, you are lucky! you can do that, you have talent while me, I dont have talent...
what?! do I did, all of this because of the talent thingy?
They just dont know how much I struggled...
But, I just throw it off, since I know they didnt understand what they've said...

This article is absolutely good!! :')
Thanks for making it.. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Aryiea In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 06:03:57 +0000 UTC]

Nice article!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Aburameclanhead In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 05:58:49 +0000 UTC]

These are very wise words.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

J-Dasse In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 05:55:11 +0000 UTC]

I agree with the fact that it can be destructive. 
here we teach children to look for what they might be good at and dedicate to it.
It is different in the east part of the world, there, people is used to the fact that sometimes things get hard and know that's were improvement comes from, that's why we think that asians are so TALENTED at everything, they education system teaches them to work hard to improve. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Gravilia In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 04:52:44 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for doing this. I find so many people hiding behind the word talent, saying things like 'oh I wish I could draw like that, Its a shame i'm not talented like you'. No! I cannot express in words how much this frustrates me. The difference between those two people is not 'talent' its hours upon hours of work. That's like stepping onto a treadmill for 20 minutes and wondering why you don't have a six pack.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DestatiDreamXIII In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 04:38:57 +0000 UTC]

I do understand the problem that can arise from the word "talent". However, not everyone in the artistic community has negative feelings for being called talented as you seem to hint at in your journal. Many are happy to hear it actually (myself included). But I do understand where you're coming from

I can see how the word "talent" could potentially be a problem when, for example, someone is aspiring to do something but already has their mind set on the belief that only people with in-born talent can succeed in that particular field. That would indeed be a mind-set that could hold the person back from even continuing to try. If I ever see someone with that mindset, I would just share with him a few improvement memes, and tell him "See? It took years for that artist to get this good. Whether or not you believe someone had in-born "talent" or not, at the end of the day it'll still take hard work and persistence to become amazing at drawing So just try your best~!"

But some people really do naturally show that they're better than average at certain things, and many people refer to that as "talent". And there are also things that some people naturally seem to get the hang of more quickly than they do with other activities (some might refer to this as "talent", and some might not) But for example, my mom has always been pretty good at recognizing rhythm. She could move to the beat of a song, and was able to teach herself a couple really simple tunes on the piano by ear. I on the other hand, had terrible rhythm and it took me some practice and help from my Mom to get decent at it. So I could say that she's more talented at rhythm than I am.

But although I do believe talent exists, it's not the defining factor of whether or not you'll be amazing at something. "Talent" can give you a bit of a head-start and perhaps help you get the hang of things a little faster, but it's still practice that allows you to actually really get good at anything. For example, even though my Mom has always naturally been better than me at recognizing rhythm, I was able to learn more difficult piano pieces than her because I had enough persistence/passion/etc for piano than her. She's not passionate enough about piano to put in the time to learn songs, but I was willing to put in the time/effort to practice a few until I got good at them. So despite her having a "head-start" compared to me, it's passion/effort/patience/persistence/etc that allows you to actually gain skill-level.

Again, I totally understand what you mean in your journal ^^ But just remember that not everyone feels the same way about this topic, and that there are still many that do appreciate being called "talented" :> For me, I've been called talented at drawing since a young age, but I never let this hold me back or discourage me from continuing to practice when I faced difficulties in art. It might not be the same for everyone, but that's just my experience regarding this topic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Felanore In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 04:38:21 +0000 UTC]

While I understand disagreeing with the premise of the journal, it does use phrases like 'potentially destructive' and 'for some of us' for a reason. It's not meant to be an absolute, sweeping declaration that this is the way it is; it's just an informative piece that says "Hey, maybe this is happening and you don't know it, here's an alternative to try."

I dunno, maybe I'm not reading enough into what's effectively a short essay with a lot of clarifying phrases on the lack of totality in the argument, but, I just can't see it.

Thank you, cakecrumbs, for the information and for helping to spread the word on what you see as a common trend in a way that still acknowledges there is another side (even if it's not as overt as some people would like). I may not be the kind who reacts negatively to the word, but it's fascinating to understand the reasoning why some people do.

Knowledge is only potential power. - A sign I once saw. I wonder if someone famous once said it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

RoadZero In reply to Felanore [2014-06-25 09:04:14 +0000 UTC]

Knowledge is only potential power - Oh my, I'm taking this quote.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Felanore In reply to RoadZero [2014-06-25 13:17:54 +0000 UTC]

Glad you like it ;D I thought it was appropriate.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

cakecrumbs In reply to Felanore [2014-06-25 06:26:46 +0000 UTC]

That's essentially the way it's intended. The reaction is certainly interesting. I'm seeing everything from passionate agreement to outright anger. I wonder if it's simply the way it's written, or if that's more a reflection of peoples own passionate feelings on the topic. But I'm glad it's got people talking and thinking about the issue!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Felanore In reply to cakecrumbs [2014-06-25 13:33:51 +0000 UTC]

Talking and thinking is what education is all about. Which is certainly why I applaud you on this journal. Passion and discussion are the keys to defeating ignorance, just so long as people have an open mind to the other side.

It seems the main problem people have right now (from reading what comments I have) is that it doesn't present both sides well enough. I'm of the impression you don't need to in a culture based mainly within the opposite side, but that's just me, it seems >_>

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RyoYamaki In reply to Felanore [2014-06-25 04:52:58 +0000 UTC]

Well there's a lot of absolute statements coupled with general word choice in this that can't be overlooked just because of the occasional "for some of us". The journal does have a point, but judging by the general response in the comments, most deviants feel like the journal's opinion is too one-sided to be good or all-encompassing advice. It writes off natural talent too much.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Felanore In reply to RyoYamaki [2014-06-25 13:31:30 +0000 UTC]

Can't be overlooked? I find that fascinating.
The intention of the journal is to inform readers about one side, assuming that they already know and have been practicing the other side for years. It's part of the premise of the opening statement. The sweeping statements after that are therefore confined by the original 'what I've seen' and 'most' clauses. The repeated use of such phrases is to emphasize that they are NOT all-encompassing statements, just possibly so within a given context.
I'll admit that, yes, the argument is that natural talent is only a small factor but, again, this assumes that people have been thinking the other way for a long time. In order to make any sort of impression one has to rally against the opposition's (not to say 'the enemy,' but rather the affirmative instead of the negative in a debate) main contentions, one of which is that natural talent isn't all it takes. So, to say that this can't be overlooked or reasoned with well... I find it odd.
A debate is a two-way street so discussion, sure. But the unhealthy levels of anger and even insults being used as a denouncement of something that a good portion of the community also agrees with is - and I'm tired so forgive my choice of words but - childish.

Then again, I guess I'm trying to tell people how to argue on the internet... >___> My bad.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Eraezr In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 04:27:49 +0000 UTC]

There are some grains of truth in this, but I think it all depends on the mindset of the receiver. Not a very open minded journal, there are many different types of artists who respond to different conditions/scenarios. Especially those with a healthy self-esteem and a great understanding of oneself and their skills are immune to external factors because some of us use our own-selves as our competitor.
Same could be applied to athletes, musicians, etc.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

vintgecassette In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 04:27:03 +0000 UTC]

Um, I must respectfully disagree here. First and foremost, talent exists. It just does. There's a reason that I can't draw as well as the people on here do, and that's not because I don't practice. I simply do not have the eye for detail that they do; I *cannot* do what they can.
However, I *am* talented at writing, and while my older writing is lack luster, it was pretty good for where I was in my life (I.e. 12). There are kids like me who have a knack for English and figurative language, and then there are also kids who really don't understand grammar or English. I don't have a talent for math or science subjects. I can understand them, but it is more difficult for me to. Talent *does* exist.
So, like many other people have said, you're welcome to take "you're talented" as an insult, but please speak for yourself. I'm a bit miffed that you're speaking for the entire community as if we all feel this way when I've seen several comments already that agree, disagree, and qualify your assertions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RyoYamaki In reply to vintgecassette [2014-06-25 04:53:51 +0000 UTC]

Well said!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Clockspur In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 04:16:49 +0000 UTC]

Indeedy

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elgrig In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 04:16:41 +0000 UTC]

It depends on the receiver. I don't get why on earth people would be so upset about receiving "You're so talented"

It's not  even specific on what you are talented in to take it as an offence. Maybe you're talented at getting better and picking up new things to fix the old. Mindless practice don't really help if you don't know what you are learning. It's obvious that these samples have taken the leap of changing styles/materials to improve and how quick for them to think "what if I try using this" can be considered talent.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Halcreix In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 03:18:48 +0000 UTC]

Hi! I'm one of the featured deviants in this journal (the Majoras' Mask one), first of all, I must say I feel honored to be mentioned here, aside that, I don't share the autor's point of view... or maybe I don't undertstand it at all.

I consider myself talented in what I do, but I'm aware that I'm still not as good as I think I can be at it, such talent allows me to learn fast and gives me the will to do so because I know I can keep improving, I've met many talented people, but not all of them seek improvement as I do, so they tend to get stuck. On the other side, I've met people who don't feel/consider themselves talented, but have a lot of will to learn and improve, they know that maybe they'll never be as good as they would like to be, but show great respect for arts basics and talented people who are good and enjoy what they do.

I believe "talent" is not a word, nor either a bad or good thing, it's just something everybody can have, no matter it's artistic related or not, because I believe there are talented doctors, physicians, engineers, architects, etc. as well as talented painters, sculptors, actors, cosplayers, etc.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TwistedCoil In reply to ??? [2014-06-25 03:12:33 +0000 UTC]

"When you praise an artists talent, you are ignoring all of that. You make our like their work is some innate gift that got magicked out of thin air"

That's just an assumption that the person who says you're talented is ignoring something, but who says having a talent didn't mean you worked for it at all?  "Talent" doesn't have to mean you were "born with it"

Really you could make an argument for ANY word being destructive if you make assumptions about what the person saying it must mean.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0