What's new

Are you born with it?

...there are always people that come from "mobile home" backgrounds that inspite of a redneck upbringing become greater than the environment they were raised in.

I totally agree. Just didn't want to write a book so I wrote the condensed version :)

Just look at Andy Warhol. Not the greatest background but he had a mother who supported him and his ways and that makes a hell of a difference. It did take hime a while to get out of his school learned ways however and truly get creative.
 
Einstein wasn't the only great Physicist of his time. He was however, the one who created a new paradigm with his theories of Special and General Relativity.

Let's not forget however that some people believe it was his wife who came up with the idea...
 
Einstein wasn't the only great Physicist of his time. He was however, the one who created a new paradigm with his theories of Special and General Relativity.

Let's not forget however that some people believe it was his wife who came up with the idea...

In which case, my point would still stand... ;)
 
it's really obvious that some people here are confusing talent and creativity with technical ability. maybe they're so adamant because they don't have any natural talent? even as kids in elementary school, children have different abilities. why are people so threatened by that? and anyone who has actually taken an art class will know that students vary widely in their aptitudes and skills. There are students there that have amazing technical skill, often after years of "practice" but lack the creativity of some others. Technically perfect but soulless and dull and unimaginative. yes, your camera can do a lot for you, and you can master your settings, but that won't make you creative. you can use all the HDR and blending frames but it won't make your photography good. everyone can work to improve their skills and become the best that they can be, but to think that everyone can get to the same place is just delusional. Some people are born with perfect pitch; I can't sing on key. No matter how much I were to practice, I'll never be a Streisand or Sills. That's not defeatist, it's realistic. I'm more than ok with that. My strengths lie in other areas. But then, I embrace the fact that we're all different.

Talent and creativity are a technical ability. I agree I have no natural talent because it does not exist. I worked for every achievement I have earned, and its been a lot of hard work. How would you go aboue teaching someone engineering, my profession. Its not that you weed them out in kindergarden and say Oh that one has talent for it! No, it requires 4 years of very hard college work plus 5-10 years of industry experience to become "expert". This isnt something that is inborn, and its not something certain people have a knack for. Its 100% hard work and effort. If you havnt done it, then you probobly dont understand. I imagine you would get the same response from a doctor, laywer, research scientist, athlete, etc.

I am so adamant because I see a lot of people stiffling their chance to grow and achieve because of their own incorrect assumptions and conclusions based on heresay or old wives tale. People used to believe earth was the center of the universe too. If you can look at the data in a critical manner and then tell me there is proof talent is inborn......I am waiting with baited breath. All of the research I have read shows the exact oposite, to many researchers suprise.

Last week I visited an art gallery and talked with the owner. He was clearly enthralled by the work in his gallery and just gushed about it. He loved art and said it was his calling. When I asked if he did his own he said no, he didnt have the talent for it. Here is a man who clearly would get great great great fulfillment out of his life if he could learn to paint. But based on societal assumptions about talent he may never put forth the effort to learn because he thinks its pointless.

Thinking that everyone CAN get to the same place is not delusional, it is a scientific fact. Thinking that everyone WILL get to the same place, now that is delusional. But whats stopping them is not the inability to gain skill, its different life priorities etc.

Just so you know you could sing like Sills, just go to vocal coach Linda Septien and work hard.
 
For Me

I learned that in art the ability to be happy with what I had created was a major plus for me. Later my next creation was more appealing than the previous.
I was never happy with my sketches because I expected them to look like photographs it was more about my self confidence.
My last drawings were with crayola crayons and I did it because I enjoyed creating these drawings.

For me Photography, loving to take my camera around and keep snapping practice shots and opening them up on the computer screen and look in amazement at the detail was extremely encouraging.

Experimenting using low light situation a candle in the dark, or trying to take a clear picture of the moon helped me learn more

Photoshoots with models (I'm being honest - first shoots it was difficult not to simply just see attractive females) I eventually began to have ideas about what make up work should or should not look like and develop ideas about style I never had before or thought I would have.

(I am now into film and darkroom)

Oh and having expensive high end lenses and a camera body you like helps a lot too...
 
it's really obvious that some people here are confusing talent and creativity with technical ability. maybe they're so adamant because they don't have any natural talent? even as kids in elementary school, children have different abilities. why are people so threatened by that? and anyone who has actually taken an art class will know that students vary widely in their aptitudes and skills. There are students there that have amazing technical skill, often after years of "practice" but lack the creativity of some others. Technically perfect but soulless and dull and unimaginative. yes, your camera can do a lot for you, and you can master your settings, but that won't make you creative. you can use all the HDR and blending frames but it won't make your photography good. everyone can work to improve their skills and become the best that they can be, but to think that everyone can get to the same place is just delusional. Some people are born with perfect pitch; I can't sing on key. No matter how much I were to practice, I'll never be a Streisand or Sills. That's not defeatist, it's realistic. I'm more than ok with that. My strengths lie in other areas. But then, I embrace the fact that we're all different.

Talent and creativity are a technical ability. I agree I have no natural talent because it does not exist. I worked for every achievement I have earned, and its been a lot of hard work. How would you go aboue teaching someone engineering, my profession. Its not that you weed them out in kindergarden and say Oh that one has talent for it! No, it requires 4 years of very hard college work plus 5-10 years of industry experience to become "expert". This isnt something that is inborn, and its not something certain people have a knack for. Its 100% hard work and effort. If you havnt done it, then you probobly dont understand. I imagine you would get the same response from a doctor, laywer, research scientist, athlete, etc.

I am so adamant because I see a lot of people stiffling their chance to grow and achieve because of their own incorrect assumptions and conclusions based on heresay or old wives tale. People used to believe earth was the center of the universe too. If you can look at the data in a critical manner and then tell me there is proof talent is inborn......I am waiting with baited breath. All of the research I have read shows the exact oposite, to many researchers suprise.

Last week I visited an art gallery and talked with the owner. He was clearly enthralled by the work in his gallery and just gushed about it. He loved art and said it was his calling. When I asked if he did his own he said no, he didnt have the talent for it. Here is a man who clearly would get great great great fulfillment out of his life if he could learn to paint. But based on societal assumptions about talent he may never put forth the effort to learn because he thinks its pointless.

Thinking that everyone CAN get to the same place is not delusional, it is a scientific fact. Thinking that everyone WILL get to the same place, now that is delusional. But whats stopping them is not the inability to gain skill, its different life priorities etc.

Just so you know you could sing like Sills, just go to vocal coach Linda Septien and work hard.


wow. you have NO concept of what it takes in the arts whatsoever. no art or music educator is ever going to agree with you. I'm now embarrassed for you. Engineering isn't a "talent" like art or music, so your example is utterly irrelevant. silly, even. we're talking creativity. OTOH, an aptitude for math might be useful to become an engineer. To think logically might be nice but apparently isn't necessary in all cases. I know someone with dyscalculia. It's quite a stretch to think she could be an engineer. OTOH, she decided to take up the clarinet to be with her friends in the high school marching band. after one semester, not only did she make the band, she was co-teaching beginning instruments at the school. She wasn't a musician but a singer. The point is that she could ALWAYS sing. Before lessons. It didn't take years of work. I specifically mentioned Sills because she was performing professionally at the age of 4. She always had musical talent. Of course, she further developed her technique, but the gift, the voice, was already there. You've obviously never been in an art class because you don't seem to display any knowledge of creativity or artistic principles. If you are serious about photography, perhaps you should take one. Mastering the buttons on your camera won't ever make you an artist. It's just silly that you can't accept that some people have innate talent which displays itself even at a young age. It's so well documented. In the US, talent is clearly recognized by our government and educational system. In California, we have the Gifted and Talented Education Program (GATE). Other countries have gifted and talented programs too. So they're all wrong and you're right? uh huh.... :lmao:
 
it's really obvious that some people here are confusing talent and creativity with technical ability. maybe they're so adamant because they don't have any natural talent? even as kids in elementary school, children have different abilities. why are people so threatened by that? and anyone who has actually taken an art class will know that students vary widely in their aptitudes and skills. There are students there that have amazing technical skill, often after years of "practice" but lack the creativity of some others. Technically perfect but soulless and dull and unimaginative. yes, your camera can do a lot for you, and you can master your settings, but that won't make you creative. you can use all the HDR and blending frames but it won't make your photography good. everyone can work to improve their skills and become the best that they can be, but to think that everyone can get to the same place is just delusional. Some people are born with perfect pitch; I can't sing on key. No matter how much I were to practice, I'll never be a Streisand or Sills. That's not defeatist, it's realistic. I'm more than ok with that. My strengths lie in other areas. But then, I embrace the fact that we're all different.

Talent and creativity are a technical ability. I agree I have no natural talent because it does not exist. I worked for every achievement I have earned, and its been a lot of hard work. How would you go aboue teaching someone engineering, my profession. Its not that you weed them out in kindergarden and say Oh that one has talent for it! No, it requires 4 years of very hard college work plus 5-10 years of industry experience to become "expert". This isnt something that is inborn, and its not something certain people have a knack for. Its 100% hard work and effort. If you havnt done it, then you probobly dont understand. I imagine you would get the same response from a doctor, laywer, research scientist, athlete, etc.

I am so adamant because I see a lot of people stiffling their chance to grow and achieve because of their own incorrect assumptions and conclusions based on heresay or old wives tale. People used to believe earth was the center of the universe too. If you can look at the data in a critical manner and then tell me there is proof talent is inborn......I am waiting with baited breath. All of the research I have read shows the exact oposite, to many researchers suprise.

Last week I visited an art gallery and talked with the owner. He was clearly enthralled by the work in his gallery and just gushed about it. He loved art and said it was his calling. When I asked if he did his own he said no, he didnt have the talent for it. Here is a man who clearly would get great great great fulfillment out of his life if he could learn to paint. But based on societal assumptions about talent he may never put forth the effort to learn because he thinks its pointless.

Thinking that everyone CAN get to the same place is not delusional, it is a scientific fact. Thinking that everyone WILL get to the same place, now that is delusional. But whats stopping them is not the inability to gain skill, its different life priorities etc.

Just so you know you could sing like Sills, just go to vocal coach Linda Septien and work hard.


wow. you have NO concept of what it takes in the arts whatsoever. no art or music educator is ever going to agree with you. I'm now embarrassed for you. Engineering isn't a "talent" like art or music, so your example is utterly irrelevant. silly, even. we're talking creativity. OTOH, an aptitude for math might be useful to become an engineer. To think logically might be nice but apparently isn't necessary in all cases. I know someone with dyscalculia. It's quite a stretch to think she could be an engineer. OTOH, she decided to take up the clarinet to be with her friends in the high school marching band. after one semester, not only did she make the band, she was co-teaching beginning instruments at the school. She wasn't a musician but a singer. The point is that she could ALWAYS sing. Before lessons. It didn't take years of work. I specifically mentioned Sills because she was performing professionally at the age of 4. She always had musical talent. Of course, she further developed her technique, but the gift, the voice, was already there. You've obviously never been in an art class because you don't seem to display any knowledge of creativity or artistic principles. If you are serious about photography, perhaps you should take one. Mastering the buttons on your camera won't ever make you an artist. It's just silly that you can't accept that some people have innate talent which displays itself even at a young age. It's so well documented. In the US, talent is clearly recognized by our government and educational system. In California, we have the Gifted and Talented Education Program (GATE). Other countries have gifted and talented programs too. So they're all wrong and you're right? uh huh.... :lmao:

Wow, you have no concept what you are talking about. I'm now seriously embarassed for you.

You may be correct in that the average engineer is not much of a creative type. However that is also true of the average architect, scientist and, yes, photographer. But, thank god, not all engineers are average and it is the creative ones that have moved us forward where engineering is used. Your response makes me think you do not have much of a chance in photography because you are so stuck in this little box of negativity...

Stop posting stupid responses and go read a few hundred books.


And by the way, GATE is the biggest joke. Why are we promoting GATE at the same time we are cutting funding for all art programs in HSs? And before you spew some more knowledge, let me tell you, I spend quite a few years fighting, at the national level, the cutting of spending in art education in our schools so don't you throw some BS at me.
 
(VFotog- I actally first read it VFog, and that was probably most correct, because your logic is beyond foggy.)

AGAIN! What a wonderful discussion!

Now to get into this whole engineering vs art thing, I'm going to disagree with you VFog. My husband is extremely methodical and technilogical, but he can shoot shots that make you cry. Most of my shooters have been from highly disciplined backgrounds, and they rock it. If they didn't I wouldn't hire them.

Now, do they see things the way I see them? No. And that is the beauty of it. They see things so differently that it's magic to me. While I see my world in whimsy, and leading lines, and facial expressions, they are seeing it more classically. And classics are classics for a reason.

And I agree that anyone can come from ANYWHERE and be a great photographer. Trailor shmalor. I've seen some wicked great photogs who grew up in the slums of India. So that whole arguement is bull****.

And you have to be trained from birth to be good at something? LOL. That is beyond nuts. I never owned a camera until my late 30s, and many of my fellows have the same experience. The one thing we all had in common was a love for arts and crafts, critters, and people. And we all used to be really good at imagination as kids. We dream very vividly. (I asked my photog friends after this thread started so it's a kind of weird informal study.).
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom