The idea that talent isn't real is just wishful thinking, and a cruelty to the untalented whose time is wasted clawing after something they'll never have.>But no one starts out good! It takes practice!Talent is a *necessary* condition for becoming a competent artist. Whether it is a *sufficient* condition is irrelevant.>Everyone who puts in the time succeeds.This isn't even true and any appearance that it is true is the result of selection bias. No one is going to continue practicing if they see no improvement for long enough, hence only those with talent will be deemed to have tried long enough.>But the people who didn't succeed were just quitters!Circular reasoning, you assume it is impossible that talent is real and therefore their failure is evidence of lack of effort.>pyw! I bet you suck at art!Ad hominem.
ok, talent is real. now what?
A majority of "talent" is just taste and understanding. If you can't draw passably well in under a year then you're most likely not actually thinking about what you're doing and why
>>7973408it's fine to give up
>>7973425what if i dont have the talent to give up?
>>7973407if you fail to adapt its your own fault
>>7973407>you assume it is impossible to succeed through effort alone and therefore their success is evidence of talentSee, I can make the same baseless arguments, too.
>>7973444I never made that assumption. The existence of talent has more to do with the possibility of not having it. There exists a plethora of perma-begs who have spent considerable effort on drawing and seemingly have no reason to choose to fail. The explanation that they simply can't acquire competency due to lacking some innate ability seems to fit all of the evidence. On the other hand, assuming talent does not exist requires imaging contrived psychological explanations for their supposed self-sabotage.
>>7973451no one was born with the innate ability to drawtalent is a cope
>>7973451That's actually much better.
>>7973407Talent may be real, but I feel effort is still far more important, so I don't really care about your flagellations over talent or your lack there of.I see improvement with my efforts, and that's all that matters to me.
>>7973456See the third line of the original post of this thread.
>>7973467That's fine as long you don't see lack of success in art as a moral failing. In fact even someone who does have talent may struggle, and benefit from rejecting blank-slatism. The possibility of not having talent does not forbid them from continuing to try, and allows them to be ok with that failure whether they overcome it or not.
talent is only proveable if you put in the work yourself to find out. someone who cant draw doesnt have the right to diminish the thousands of hours of grind that went into it. i see some of the four chin niggas having many thousands in shit oike tf2 or xcom. if they spent that time drawing, they'd be good depending on what they specialize in. there is no universal talent. a sculptor wont necessarily paint good. a cartoonist likely doesnt do good portraits. an academy artist cant draw uguuu~ moe shit or any sort of fanart. now, they might but its less likely.now stop procrastinating and get back to work>inb4 pyw
>>7973484>someone who cant draw doesnt have the right to diminish the thousands of hours of grind that went into itHow does acknowledging talent do that exactly? Again, necessary condition =/= sufficient condition.
>>7973456I disagree. Talent is obviously real. It takes time and effort to get to a level that the talent shows itself in your work, but history has proven that individuals with genetic talent indeed exist
>>7973488you dont qualify for an opinion on things you havent experienced
>>7973476so there's no talent for drawingbut talent for learning to draw
>>7973425I bet you people have such a fulfilling life to go back to when you quit art, that's why you spend time on \ic\
>>7973495You just need to learn how to learn
Based crab. Demoralize and destroy other artists until you are the only ones left. Supply and demand, the less competition the better. Why should others get to succeed when you don't?
>>7973491>history has proven that individuals with genetic talent indeed existlike?
>>7973407Yeah talent is real. But it's just an aptitude. A talented bum isn't drawing anything.
>>7973408Acknowledging that talent is real is enough to blackpill some people on this board. I know, right?
>>7973709No it’s the exact opposite. No one is just good automatically, but only some have the potential to become good. I took a drawing class for my art credit in college and the first thing we did was blind contour. This is the most acute point at which talent is necessary. Some people have an innate ability to acquire *constructive information* (what they need to draw) from *experiential information* (what they see). This is a subtle distinction in this case, but is sharper when we consider other senses: It is hard to imagine someone deriving a recipe for a meal (constructive information) just from the taste of that meal (experiential information), unless they have already cooked that meal before and know its taste (in which case they are doing this process backwards, which is akin to symbol drawing).I would make the distinction that symbol drawing probably doesn’t require talent, and can be taken quite far. For example one can easily memorize a set of steps to draw a box in perspective, and then recreate boxes they see in real life. But this is still symbol drawing, they would be recognizing a symbol they already know how to draw and then drawing it, rather than figuring out how to draw that thing by looking at it.
>>7973784observational drawing is not a talent, its trained. you look at the thing, then draw it as it is. like, open your eyes. same with construction. all of it is learnable. what you refer to talent is just intelligence, instinct, awareness, motivation, passion.
>>7973791Again that something is trained is evidence that talent is not *sufficient* but says nothing about whether or not it is necessary. You demonstrate exactly why blank statism is such a foul belief. The ability to draw is relatively particular, quite far from the basic abilities required for someone to function. Yet your assumption that talent does not exist requires you to conclude that the ability to draw requires only the general virtues of intelligence, motivation, etc (I don’t know why you mention instinct since that seemingly undermines your point). Thus, someone who tries and fails to learn to draw must be lacking in these general virtues.I suspect this is all down stream of our negatively oriented culture. People are shamed for being boastful, for saying “I am exceptional and proud because I am a good artist”. So instead they have to denigrate the people who lack the abilities they have, and implicitly place themselves above them.
>>7973784>>7973814You don’t come here often, do you?Because your posts aren’t pure bullshit.
>>7973834>Because your posts aren’t pure bullshit.but they are. >>7973814>but says nothing about whether or not it is necessaryit isnt. hard work is the only answer. study . inspiration comes after skill
There absolutely are people who are completely incapable of learning to draw well but they are the minority. Most people are near the middle of the "talent" bell curve and can learn to draw well with varying amounts of time and effort. Just like with any skillset there are going to be outliers who pick up drawing incredibly fast, and you could call those the true talented ones. Artists who can draw aesthetically pleasing stuff with weak fundamentals, and vice versa, show that it's not a simple dichotomy between talented vs untalented, and the fact that artists can degrade or suddenly show massive improvement seemingly out of nowhere show that it's not static. The human brain is a strong contender for the most complex structure in the known universe, the idea that one's propensity for a largely mental ability is entirely dependant on one poorly-defined variable like "talent" is just sillyIf you can look at someone make a line on a piece of paper, then look at your own piece of paper and make a similar line, then you can most likely learn to draw in some capacity
>>7973709>>7973484What's often left out of the conversation is how most brains aren't usually wired for 3D thinking. Dyslexic brains are...which is why people on the dyslexia spectrum tend to be leagues above their childhood peers. You can usually identify dyslexic artists by just looking at how they fuck up with spelling. For everyone else, drawing is very difficult because you have to force your brain to think in 3D and build up a visual library. That means doing your blind contours, meaningful tracing, positive and negative space studies, active recall (the cognitive method), upside down drawings, shape grinding, etc.It requires time (and also pacing yourself), consistency, and tackling what you suck at. The reason why most people struggle is because they aren't doing the necessary exercises and studies, they aren't drawing frequently, and they aren't actively working at what they suck at.
>>7973727they would find any excuse
>>7974131any excuse to be lazy and stay a howie
>>7973407ok talent is real, so now what? Are you going to draw now, oh you still won't? then fuck off
>>7973706Leonardo davinci and Mozart are prime example. You could even argue Michael Jackson
>>7974266autism is not a talent
Okay, so then why aren't they called, "hard work scouts"?!
>>7974266>MozartHere is Mozart’s early life, told in a little more detail by the journalist and author Geoff Colvin:Mozart’s father was of course Leopold Mozart, a famous composer and performer in his own right. He was also a domineering parent who started his son on a programme of intensive training in composition and performing at age three. Leopold was well qualified for his role as little Wolfgang’s teacher by more than just his own eminence; he was deeply interested in how music was taught to children.While Leopold was only so-so as a musician, he was highly accomplished as a pedagogue. His authoritative book on violin instruction, published the same year Wolfgang was born, remained influential for decades. So, from the earliest age, Wolfgang was receiving heavy instruction from an expert teacher who lived with him…Mozart’s first work regarded today as a masterpiece, with its status confirmed by the number of recordings available, is his Piano Concerto No. 9, composed when he was twenty-one. That’s certainly an early age, but we must remember that by then Wolfgang had been through eighteen years of extremely hard, expert training.
>>7974371>eighteen years of extremely hard, expert training.the grind is eternal. the grind is life.
>>7974266they are outliers. you remove outliers from statistical data because they skew the results.
>>7974266what is it with losers an this obsession with needing to THE 0.0000001%? You see the same mentality with incels thinking they need to be a fucking adonis to get with a girl. Look AROUND YOU YOU FUCKING DIMWITS. The world is FILLED with very successful average and above average talent. Even below average talent can find success. You all defeat yourselves before even trying because YOU'RE TOO SCARED TO FAIL. IF YOU TRIED YOU'D REALIZE THE BAR IS NOT EVEN THAT HIGH. THE THING EVERYONE IS ATTRACTED IN THIS LIFE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T AFRAID TO FAIL. IT'S CALLED CONFIDENCE.
>>7974266HAVE SOME AUDACITY BITCH. HAVE THE AUDACITY TO TRY.
>>7973791There isn't any such thing as drawing something as it is. Drawing is inherently abstract, which is why it's more difficult to learn than other visual arts. You can't directly transfer what you see to the page, you have to figure out a way to communicate what you see in a visual language. That's the foundation of drawing, not observation, and there isn't really a logical way to approach it so far as I'm aware. It can't really be directly practiced, you just have to hope you get a feel for it.>>7974266DaVinci really wasn't some unapproachable super-genius. He just remained curious, observant, and actively learning throughout his life, and ended up good at several things (having constant access to top-tier tutors didn't hurt, either.) Most disciplines also complement each other, even ones you wouldn't suspect would do so, so getting good at one thing supplements one's abilities and achievements in other areas.
>>7974907>YOU'RE TOO SCARED TO FAILtrve
>>7974907Uhh sorry, anon, I want my first work to be a critical and commercial success that transcends culture and political borders and I don't want to have to practice creating finished works or the act of trying to sell them for all this to happen for me
>>7973407>>7973451Hm. Sample size? Link your data. Surely this isn't *it*?
>>7975005>It can't really be directly practiced, you just have to hope you get a feel for it.to a degree maybe, but in the end its just a logic of placing, angles, sizing and general measuring. thats why some people here are against grids, because it usually delivers the most accurate outcome. doing perfect copies is boring and very time intesnse anyway, so some stylization is preffered if you want to have a balance between quality and quantity. it's not a talent to be concentrated, observant, and vigilant, it just takes time.
>>7974907Someone with brains. I'm so annoyed with seeing people frozen in fear, occasionally getting the guts to try something a LITTLE BIT, then going around talking like they've dedicated themselves to it sacrificially but were doomed from the start. Victims of the world, I guess? The only reason you other guys are doomed to fail is that you don't have the willpower nor the self assurance. In other words, lazy and scared.
>>7973407talent is real sure. however it only means the other guy can learn FASTER, not that a talentless you cannot learn at all. stop envying the fast learners, you're wasting time to git gud yourself
Decent TalentsBasic Knowledge (Visual Information) (Form, Drawing, Observation)Presence of having seen things beforeForm Perception (Observation)The ability to see objects accurately; excellent at copying.Stereoscopic Perception (Logical Thinking)The ability to grasp the structure of objects and reconcretize them in one's mind.Sense of Proportion (Sense of Area, Design Sense)Good design sense by composing composition and rhythm well.Sense of Volume (Ability to discover 3D in 2D)Good at calculating light and shadow; good at expressing three-dimensionality.Color ToneThe ability to detect subtle differences in color and perceive color combinations.Aesthetic SenseThe ability to distinguish between what is attractive and what is not, and to appeal to the viewer.Koreans say talent exists but even if you have no talent you can reach mid int if you know the right way. Is that true? My goal exactly is becoming a mid int.
>>7975896They basically say all these talents exist but they need to be honed even if one has talent and can be learned or improved.Btw this is my goal would I be able to reach it as a beg?
>>7975896you won't know until you try.some will leave /beg/ early, but stall at low /int/. others will have slow but steady gains the whole time. some can't get themselves out of /beg/ but once they find the right teacher/approach/resource they can.it's an art form, so there isn't a linear path everyone can follow.>>7975898that might look simple, but sketching like that requires a lot of higher level skills. so that's /int/ at least.
>>7973948>it isnt. hard work is the only answer. studyYou don't have evidence for this. That's what anon is saying. You've hit the limit of the conversation and are too stupid to understand that.Consider someone who hits their head and loses their ability to draw. Did they become retroactively lazy? What about a person who hits their head first and is therefore unable to learn to draw?What are the prime virtues anyways?
>>7975918>You don't have evidence for thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1rhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13128701Carol Dweck conducted many experiments like this that all showed the same results, the only question she has not been able to answer is; will anon draw now?
Good work ethic is also luck dependent.
>>7973408/thread
>>7975918>Consider someone who hits their head and loses their ability to draw. Did they become retroactively lazy? What about a person who hits their head first and is therefore unable to learn to draw?nowi know youre only fishing for (You)s. its the chris chan argument all over again. obviously mentally damaged people will struggle. ergo, if you cant learn to draw, you are certifiably brain damaged physically or by birth.
>>7974266Worst examples. All of those were trained as children, especially Mozart and Michael Jackson are peak trained-from-child examples
>>7973484>i see some of the four chin niggas having many thousands in shit oike tf2 or xcomAnd amusingly, a lot of people who pour countless hours into gaming are still dogshit at it. Hell, just look at something like Tetris, a lot of the best players in the world are literal children who have only been playing the game for a few years.
>>7977260No don't point out how Mozart's father was a very strict and rigorous instructor! Or how Davinci had to slave away in workshop, or how Michael Jackson basically had no childhood!! It'd btfo out of talent fags so hard they'd have to move the goal posts to starting too late and being an adult that can no longer learn.... except that studies have shown adults still actively create new neutral connections and show plasticity in their brain if they continue to force their brains to not rely on crystallized intelligence. Obviously not as sponge like as a child, but still plenty capable of learning. Then once you take away this they try to move the conversation to how they don't have the time despite being NEETs, then the conversation inevitably loops back to talent because they bring up how for a period of 1 week they haphazardly did a few studies and didn't instantly become masters. Oh the humanity!!! The truth is most people NEVER get even remotely close to hitting their genetic limits because it takes more effort than most ever want to put in. Mastery of any skill is not for the faint of heart.
>>7977277Again you don't seem to understand what you are trying to prove. What matters is, does every kid who someone tries to beat into becoming a master actually become one? Is it possible to make the same efforts and still fail? The fact that ability requires effort and training is not controversial. The question is can effort and training guarantee success?I think this thread has proven at the very least that basic logic depends on talent, since it seems many of you here fundamentally cannot understand the difference between "P implies Q" and "Q implies P".
>>7977893It would appear you don't seem to understand that I'm not denying, nor have I ever denied that talent exists. Talent is just a force multiplier, that's it. By the time Mozart was 6 he had already grinded away at piano for thousands upon thousands of hours. Due to his intrinsic talent, environment and nurturing this means he was able to perform for royalty at such a young age. The WHOLE point I'm trying to make is that fuckheads like to pretend talent is the ONLY part of the equation, and once again, this is only in regards to the true pinnacles, which are exceptional by nature and a MIX of different variables coming together to form the perfect storm.
>>7977924>Talent is just a force multiplierNo it's a key. If you don't have talent you can't become a master. However, even if you have talent you can still be shit.>fuckheads like to pretend talent is the ONLY part of the equationNo, I don't, show me where I said anything of the sort. The sentiment is essentially "Having talent isn't everything, not having it is." (with respect to becoming a competent artist).
>>7977954You've confined the argument to a small box to where your logic is the only one that can apply. Need I remind you what the OP post was?The idea that talent isn't real is just wishful thinking, and a cruelty to the untalented whose time is wasted clawing after something they'll never have.>But no one starts out good! It takes practice!Talent is a *necessary* condition for becoming a competent artist. Whether it is a *sufficient* condition is irrelevant.>Everyone who puts in the time succeeds.This isn't even true and any appearance that it is true is the result of selection bias. No one is going to continue practicing if they see no improvement for long enough, hence only those with talent will be deemed to have tried long enough.>But the people who didn't succeed were just quitters!Circular reasoning, you assume it is impossible that talent is real and therefore their failure is evidence of lack of effort.>pyw! I bet you suck at art!Ad hominem.Do you need talent to attain mastery? Sure. There are also varying degrees of talent that are hard to quantify as there are many plateaus that many people simply don't want to push past. Talent is once again, a force multiplier. For example, with things like bodybuilding, some people simply have a lot easier of a time building muscle and reaching their genetic ceilings, some don't, if both were to take steroids, both would be able to approach their genetic ceilings at which point it'd become clear who had a higher cap in their potential. Talent does not equal the fullness of your potential rather how fast you will be able to approach that and push past plateaus and have breakthroughs. Some people are just not interested in the pursuing of their full potential because they don't have enough talent to where it's effortless.
>>7973407made this piece in gimp using a mouse with simple editing and utility use, talent is overrated if you know h ow the tool you use works and you got a decent patience to fiddle around until it clicks. I have not been that great at before, mostly just doodled anatomy and fantasy art before with a pencil, knowing how getting this style with GIMP works now, I wish had learned sooner. It doesn't take talent, just wit and cunning and saying "fuck that nonsense, we got tools because we are inherently lazy, otherwise we would be living in caves still."
>>7977985to succeed in art (business wise) is more about the devil you know than the talent you got. the only reason to go to art school is to wank off your own ego and give "credentials" to how you present yourself to the people in the industry.
Not sure if thar talent thing exists or not, but Ive seen many times this defeatist argument that people without talent should not bother trying cause it would be a waste of time. Probably true in the utilitarian sense. But then why bother with art if you are so utilitarian, go study stem or trades. I see pursuing art as a reason in itself, always worth it from the talentless 4chinned nigga to the kjg geniuses
>>7978002Okay, thank fuck we can finally move past the retarded trap of hyper focusing on talent. Skill alone is rarely enough to find success, it's one small facet of a larger vehicle where your soft skills and entrepreneurship matter more. There are so many steps to the process of finding success, and quite frankly, talent is such a retarded part to get hung up on since we live in a world where art is a commodity and novelty/niche/relatability is what will make you stand out.
>>7978006there's a reason someone can sell a banana taped on a piece of canvas and call it art and sell it to a tune of a huge number is because he succeeded in marketing and building a brand.
>>7978006>b-but muh slop muh soul muh artistryGrow up. If you want to make a living off your art you have to remove your retarded romanticist ideals and recognize the game for what it is. Often times competing in a hypersaturated market means compromising on things now so that you can do what you want later. That's life. There's give and take. Then again, all of this is for what? Most people on here don't even know what they want. This is a reality check to people who do want to make a living out of their art, most every single financially successful artist saw the game for what it was. Picasso and Michelangelo would have had patreons and been obnoxious lolcows. Michelangelo would probably have had a fucking sweat shop running out of the india for producing slop for AAA studios because he basically already created exactly that during his time.
>>7978010trolls have never been in a more lucrative position in history. Period. Algorithms reward ragebait. We literally have professional trolls being paid to troll. That's the times we're living in. We can lament the death of substances and values while simultaneously, spitefully even, playing the system.
>>7978010not them but: I don't want to make money out of my art. Otherwise I would've been sucking furry dicks or something and drawing their fetish slop before it was cool, I just have certain principles I go by regardless of how shit appears.
>>7973407Ok you draw like shit because you're a talentless hack you will never be good at anything kill yourselfHappy now?Now get out and go complain about twitter screencaps on /v/
>>7978014At which point all I can really say to you is enjoy art for what it is and don't get hung up on the rat race. This whole conversation of talent shouldn't matter to you at all if you're just doing it for personal fulfillment.
>>7977985What I’m getting at is that there is an innate ability, that some otherwise completely functional people do not have, that is necessary to be able to learn to draw competently. By “competently” I mean to the level that might be expected of a student after finishing a typical drawing program focused on representation.The point is that someone who lacks this talent isn’t just “at a lower level”, but that they have to draw in a fundamentally different way. In particular, they are only able to do advanced symbol drawing. They cannot “draw what they see”, so the typical methods of studying, as well as almost every book or video on the subject of “how to draw” is useless to them.To clarify what exact ability they would lack, imagine they are presented with a simple image of a triangle, an ellipse, and a rectangle arranged on piece of paper, and they are asked to copy those simple shapes. There is no real method to this, the image they are trying to recreate is already broken down into its simplest elements.Someone who lacks talent would be unable to consistently copy this simple figure in all but its most abstract features. They would make a drawing such that the relative proportions, positions, and angles are off to a measurable degree. Their drawing would however be a recognizable symbol of the original figure.Even if you insist they recreate this figure as accurately as possible, they would only improve by trial and error, and as soon as you give them a new simple figure their progress would be reset.The tldr is that anyone could learn to draw a particular symbol of, for example, a “realistic face”, maybe even a large number of different faces. But they would only be able to draw those, they would not ever be able to learn how to make portraits in general, if you sat them in front of a new person, all they could do is draw someone front their memorized set who looks the closest to whoever they are looking at.
>>7975904>some will leave /beg/ early, but stall at low /int/.How do I avoid this
