I think that my interpretation of the absolute quality of the quote
posted is accurate. The title, itself, pretty much says it: “The myth
of talent.” Characterizing something as a myth pretty much denies
it’s validity.
I don’t think that talent is necessarily a small part of the
equation. Sometimes it is a small part, sometimes the lion’s share…
Again, there are no hard and fast rules.
I have a friend who was diagnosed with dyslexia late in life. She
was able to achieve great things by working her tail off and pushing
through her mysterious (at the time) inability to read. The shear
force of her persistence opened all the doors for her.
Whether the dyslexia stood between her talent and her success (and
her persistence allowed her to access that talent) or talent played
no role at all in her success and it was solely her hard work that
saved the day I’ll never know. But I do know that, while talent plays
a greater or lesser role, it is no myth.
I suppose, in the end, that it is ALL subjective. That’s why I wrote
"to some eyes is not inspired". Certainly, seeing talent as a myth is
a subjective observation.
It is amazing how someone' screative endeavors can be dismissed
for years as being nothing special then all of a sudden someone of
the appropriate stature in the Art world "discovers" how great it
is, then everyone can proclaim how great it is. What changed,
certainly not the original work.
Jim, what a great description of a phenomenon that keeps most of us
reaching for some level of “discovery” and trying to keep hope alive!
As I wrote sometime ago (weeks) I am a “Happy Dyslexic”, not fully
fulfilling my dream to finish high school…let alone getting to
university.
Dyslexia played an interesting part of my life, I now wouldn’t have
it any other way. Yet it is still a difficult task to write and read.
But with all of us with this problem, we all compensated…we
overcame the “negatives and turned them into positives”…we work
harder to create with our minds and hands.
Imagine at the tender age of 40 discovering that all of the past
problems were finally understood, I pursued diamond setting with more
vigor…life is what you make of it!..
Over the 30 years I have done metalsmithing I have never pondered
the question about skill, talent, ect. I have noticed how creativity
is applied differently by the vision of the individual and the
capacity they have to find a way to express that creativity in a
manner congruent with their ability to use tools and techniques to
express that creativity.
I question “our” ability to be objective about “our” work in
relations hip to “our” ability to be objective about the work of
others. There can be a different perception of our own work as our
skill level changes and our expectations change over time and we have
a new standard and criteria to hold ourselves and others accountable
for. To me this is more about craftsmanship than design. I cannot
relate to defining talent or skill any better than I can measure the
distance between heart and soul.
As I relate better to those who can articulate through words that
form thoughts and concepts that I feel connected to, I relate to
metal work that I perceive as articulating something I am able to
identify with, and I cannot express why or how. Might be that I can
identify an internal process expressed in an external form and I feel
I can identify with what moved the person to express in the manner
they chose.
Interplay between form and craftsmanship are important to how I
relate to what I create, and what others create. Poor craftsmanship
by myself or others turns me off regardless of how creative the
design is.
I have been reading this thread with great interest. I fully believe
that everyone has a talent - but it may not be the talent that they
wish they had. I have a great deal of respect for many talents that
I do not share -
those of cooking and raising sane children being high on my respect
list. But I have seen talent come through in head-to-head challenges
in which a group of people of similar skills are given the same
materials and challenged to make something of their choice within
those materials only. The variety of items made are remarkable, and
many of them are competently made. But only a few go the step beyond
into unusual, innovative, and artistic. It is this step beyond that
talent can fuel. Technique is mandatory, but talent can often pull a
piece from the mundane into the extraordinary.
This was not addressed to me but I couldn’t let this statement pass
unchallenged.
The title, itself, pretty much says it: "The myth of talent."
Characterizing something as a myth pretty much denies it's
validity.
It’s accurate only if one misunderstands what ‘myth’ means. It does
not mean fictional or unreal.
If one goes back to Greek drama or “The Hesiod”, "The Illiad’ and
“The Odyssey”, the myths contained in these works embody basic truths
about the ‘human condition’.
‘Myth’, in popular culture, is frequently mistaken for something
else; comparable to 'legend.
What I suspect we have been talking about is an aptitude, but not
a talent
Yes, Leonid, and yes Andy - it’s that talent is a “myth” that does
it, and saying those words suggests that anybody can do anything if
they just work hard enough, which IS the myth.
I would describe (capital T) Talent as the ability to fly where
others walk. To at least get to the finish line first and at it’s
best to redefine what the finish line IS - Picasso did that, as one
example. It’s not merely an aptitude, it’s a vision - it’s Deja Vu -
“I feel like I already knowthis…” I had the misfortune of
batting against Dan Quesenberry (relief pitcher for the KC Royals,
later in life) in grammar school softball.
He was already a major league pitcher at the age of 8. He wasn’t
just a great pitcher, he was on another planet. Talent.
Thomas Edison made his famous quote (10% inpiration…) AFTER he
was world famous for altering the course of human history for all
time through his innovations with electricity. He didn’t just invent
stuff, he also began the wiring of the world and the inception of
elecrical power for all. Thus “Edison Power”. Vision, innovation,
flying where others walk… He was also the right man in the right
place at the right time - that counts for a lot…
I think that my interpretation of the absolute quality of the
quote posted is accurate. The title, itself, pretty much says it:
"The myth of talent." Characterizing something as a myth pretty much
denies it's validity.
Ah, now I see where you are coming from. I don’t equate myth with
falsehood, to me myths are stories to try to explain things we don’t
comprehend. To me the myth is that you have to be talented to be
good at something and this talent is a gift from the gods that you
have no control over. This has a corollary, if I am no good at
something it is because I don’t have talent and that is my excuse for
my lack of accomplishment.
I do not believe that someone can become a Lalique, da Vinci or
Einstein by just working hard. There is something special about
someone who can come up with the innovative work of that caliber,
but that is not talent that is genius.
natural ability as opposed to learned. again, I see two people with
different degrees of talent achieving / doing / inventing /
expressing / discovering / learning / understanding / experiencing /
knowing / more and less, respectively, given the same conditions and
same amount of work input to a process. I can’t see that this much is
debatable, and I’m not going to get into an argument (or discussion)
about how much talent makes a difference. I think it’s more than a
tiny part, less that a huge part. I don’t know, I haven’t studied it
or read any scientific studies on it. also I do agree with Binnion
that sicence and invention are undertakings that benefit from talent.
to me, ‘talent’ is an aspect of a more fundamental perceptive /
analytical / creative / implementable attribute that people are born
with in different degrees. In other words, I see it as some
(‘special’) natural ability or aptitude to see, think, concieve, and
express new things, or old things in new ways. I don’t think anyone
is without it, but since I don’t really know what ‘it’ is (or that
anyone really does, objectively) I can’t say with any authority much
besides it does certainly seem to exist (^8.
Here’s a quick copying of some definitions of “myth”.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being
or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or
demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is
pure myth.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a
social institution.
Also:
A widely held or false belief or idea.
A fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
I believe that the common understanding and use of the word "myth"
would lean towards definitions #3, 4, 5 and #1 and 2. As you
indicated in your post.
And so I believe that the original quote maker --not Jim-- was using
the word pejoratively and negatively to indicate a disbelief in the
validity of “talent”. As in “to debunk a myth”.
Talent is a natural aptitude by dictionary definition. What you
describe as talent and many are defining as such is actually prodigy.
There are few prodigies, but many talented individuals. Picasso and
Mozart were prodigies because they knew at young ages how do things
many could only dream of completing.
The way we learn is not always the same, so therefore the
explanation of some people “got it and others don’t” does not cut it
for me. When I was in grad school, I was lucky enough to be part of a
program that stressed understanding how the brain understood art and
the processes of making art.
One of the fundamental experience I had was seeing Howard Gardner
lecture after reading his book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of
Multiple Intelligence.
There are different ways individuals learn, and they are not always
symbiotic with their teachers. Some people learn through verbal
instruction while others need visual examples. Just think how talent
could be recognized, if everyone’s learning style was met by the life
experiences and instruction- we might all be prodigies. Often though,
the majority of teachers are verbal learners and I think it is like
80% of students are nonverbal learners. This does not mean that the
80% can not learn through verbal instruction, but instead that they
have less of an aptitude for it compared to other styles.
There are a couple of other factors that lead to success, mastery,
and what everyone here is thinking of as talent. That is motivation.
The desire to pursue the task and to finish it. As was noted, there
are many people that seem to have it easy when learning new skills
that can make others envious and teachers impressed, but unless they
are motivated, they will not go far. They have to have the desire or
high level of interest that keeps them involved. It is motivation
that leads them to practice over and over when the task is repetitive
or boring. For example, professional athletes spend hours each day
practicing leading up to a big game. You would not expect Michael
Jordan to be successful at the game with out warming up and
practicing. Just as practice develops his kinetic skills, jewelers
need to practice and repeat tasks to develop fine motor movements
needed to complete a variety of skills/tasks.
I think another thing that has been omitted in this discussion is
Creativity. Mixed with aptitude and motivation, the end results can
be brilliant. It is a way to find solutions to problems when
knowledge is not available. It is a way of thinking in which there
are many possibilities that can yield many possible results-, some
good and some bad. Talent alone will not make someones art work
interesting, nor will motivation. It is creativity in both the artist
and the viewer that make art and in our case jewelry interesting
instead of just utilitarian and functional.
I hope this makes sense; my eight year old has been critiquing my
typing skills the whole time I typed this.
But more to the point, I don't think science or invention is 'art'.
See this is why science has such a hard time in the first place. I
can not tell you how many artists I have heard state that they would
never trust a scientist, doctor, neurosurgeon, astrophysicist, what
have you, who made art. When I have never heard a scientist of any
profession say the same thing. Quite the opposite in fact. Most
scientists practice some form of art on a regular basis. That is
because the same side of our human brains that allows us to
effectively create things is the same side they use. Scientists are
not accountants. They have to be able to look at data in new ways and
create working ideas out of that data. Science is their art. And when
it comes to doctors I would not want a neurosurgeon in my brain who
could not process new incoming data fast enough to extrapolate new
thoughts on my particular brains processes while he has my head open.
If you are in doubt, go spend some time working as an assistant to a
research scientist. It’ll open your eyes.
Then you don't understand science, or mathematics, or the beauty
of an "aha moment." Many of man's most beautiful, artistic creations
are in the mind.
The only difference between a scientist and an artist is that while
scientist could use a microscope or a computer, an artist would use a
pencil or a brush instead. The rest is almost identical.
Incidentally, Ecole Polythechnique used to require student entering
Mathematics Program to qualify in painting. I am not sure if they
still do it.
This has a corollary, if I am no good at something it is because I
don't have talent
And - “Ah now I see where you are coming from”. I was beginning to
wonder…
I’ve painted on and off most of my life - not too bad, not too good.
Certainly I know a fair bit of ~how~ to paint. I will never be a
great painter because I just can’t do two dimensions well. Shading,
depth, perspective, foreshortening - the things that bring 2d to
life just escape me. I can carve it… For the exact same reason
I’ll never be a great engraver.
By the same reasoning, I know what diodes are, what resistors and
capacitors are and how they work, in general. I finally came to
understand that electronics is about feeding a signal to a
transducer (like a TV). But I can’t for the life of me grasp how
those diodes and resistors come to make a certain signal. That I
could surely be taught, but I just have no aptitude for it to begin
with. I’m not toatlly ignorant, either, just close to it.
Imagine if we took this thread into other human attributes: “The
myth of intellegence”. “The myth of ethics” The myth of sanity…
All are real, all are important when they are, and not important
when they’re not. Including talent…