bobbytan wrote:
Mark, I beg to differ slightly. Being a pilot or a rocket scientist is quite different to being an artist, photographer or a singer. The later is born with an inherent talent or skill. If God decided that you will be born w/o the ability to sing, no amount of training is going to make you a singing sensation. And artists and photographers are a bit like singers. If you don\'t have a very visual or creative mind you can still learn and become a decent photographer but your growth will be limited. Likewise athletes. I do believe that the top athletes are born with a natural talent, and given the proper training and equipment/tools to work with, they will become world-class champions. FWIW I am the epitome of a stunted photographer ... in case you think that I think I belong to the later group.
It is complex.
I think that we each have different skills and attributes and strengths and weaknesses - though the extent to which they are \"born\" vs. the extent to which they are nurtured (from a very early age) is open to discussion. But in the same way that some are taller/shorter, have better/worse vision, possess a stronger/weaker sense of smell, can hear higher/lower frequencies, are more/less sensitive to things like facial expressions, and all the rest... I think we do start at different places when it comes to our abilities to \"see\" photographically or in other visual arts.
I\'m convinced that almost anyone can move themselves from where they start to a different place, given time and effort and training and thought. But I\'m equally convinced that not everyone starts in exactly the same place. Whether you call it \"talent\" or \"nature\" or something else, one aspect of the package that makes people what they are in creative work seems to be something that is inborn. (Notice that I wrote \"one aspect.\")
I have taught in the arts for many years, so I\'ve had lots of opportunities to encounter this and think about it. I would virtually never tell anyone that \"you don\'t have talent so don\'t pursue this.\" I can never tell for sure where such things will lead. But I can tell you for certain that some people come along who just seem to have a \"something\" that lets them see and understand in a different way. I could tell stories...
Please also be clear that I\'m most certainly not implying that it is an either-or proposition. Even those with some special in-born talent or vision must work hard to realize its full potential. And those who we might think have less of this natural ability may have more than we know (I have some personal experience here, too) and many can move a significant distance along the path towards realizing their ability to think and act expressively.
bobbytan wrote:
Mark, I beg to differ slightly. Being a pilot or a rocket scientist is quite different to being an artist, photographer or a singer. The later is born with an inherent talent or skill. If God decided that you will be born w/o the ability to sing, no amount of training is going to make you a singing sensation. And artists and photographers are a bit like singers. If you don\'t have a very visual or creative mind you can still learn and become a decent photographer but your growth will be limited. Likewise athletes. I do believe that the top athletes are born with a natural talent, and given the proper training and equipment/tools to work with, they will become world-class champions. FWIW I am the epitome of a stunted photographer ... in case you think that I think I belong to the later group.
It is complex.
I think that we each have different skills and attributes and strengths and weaknesses - though the extent to which they are \"born\" vs. the extent to which they are nurtured (from a very early age) is open to discussion. But in the same way that some are taller/shorter, have better/worse vision, possess a stronger/weaker sense of smell, can hear higher/lower frequencies, are more/less sensitive to things like facial expressions, and all the rest... I think we do start at different places when it comes to our abilities to \"see\" photographically or in other visual arts.
I\'m convinced that almost anyone can move themselves from where they start to a different place, given time and effort and training and thought. But I\'m equally convinced that not everyone starts in exactly the same place. Whether you call it \"talent\" or \"nature\" or something else, one aspect of the package that makes people what they are in creative work seems to be something that is inborn. (Notice that I wrote \"one aspect.\")
I have taught in the arts for many years, so I\'ve had lots of opportunities to encounter this and think about it. I would virtually never tell anyone that \"you don\'t have talent so don\'t pursue this.\" I can never tell for sure where such things will lead. But I can tell you for certain that some people come along who just seem to have a \"something\" that lets them see and understand in a different way. I could tell stories...
bobbytan wrote:
Mark, I beg to differ slightly. Being a pilot or a rocket scientist is quite different to being an artist, photographer or a singer. The later is born with an inherent talent or skill. If God decided that you will be born w/o the ability to sing, no amount of training is going to make you a singing sensation. And artists and photographers are a bit like singers. If you don\'t have a very visual or creative mind you can still learn and become a decent photographer but your growth will be limited. Likewise athletes. I do believe that the top athletes are born with a natural talent, and given the proper training and equipment/tools to work with, they will become world-class champions. FWIW I am the epitome of a stunted photographer ... in case you think that I think I belong to the later group.
It is complex.
I think that we each have different skills and attributes and strengths and weaknesses - though the extent to which they are \"born\" vs. the extent to which they are nurtured (from a very early age) is open to discussion. But in the same way that some are taller/shorter, have better/worse vision, possess a stronger/weaker sense of smell, can hear higher/lower frequencies, are more/less sensitive to things like facial expressions, and all the rest... I think we do start at different places when it comes to our abilities to \"see\" photographically or in other visual arts.
I\'m convinced that almost anyone can move themselves from where they start to a different place, given time and effort and training and thought. But I\'m equally convinced that not everyone starts in exactly the same place. Whether you call it \"talent\" or \"nature\" or something else, one aspect of the package that makes people what they are in creative work seems to be something that is inborn. (Notice that I wrote \"one aspect.\")
Dan
May 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #10646405 « Gear vs Talent... »
And artists and photographers are a bit like singers. If you don\'t have a very visual or creative mind you can still learn and become a decent photographer but your growth will be limited. Likewise athletes. I do believe that the top athletes are born with a natural talent, and given the proper training and equipment/tools to work with, they will become world-class champions. FWIW I am the epitome of a stunted photographer ... in case you think that I think I belong to the later group. 