you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 13 points 2 days ago (6 children)

If you've had very little experience with painting, how do you know how good you would be at it? Your friend might have a natural talent, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't learn how.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Natural talent is a myth, it's like believing that you shouldn't think about what you're doing to paint loose.

    It's all hard work, and maybe in the end you can split up artists by talent, but until then it's just who have learned the most.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 22 hours ago (3 children)

    Prodigies exist. Some people learn faster than others, and some have ability that's just leaps and bounds beyond anybody else. This is independent of hard work, but somebody who has talent but doesn't do the hard work isn't going to be very good. At one end of the bell curve are people who just aren't going to get it no matter what, and prodigies are at the other end. Most people are in the middle: they can become technically proficient with hard work, but they'll never be as good as a prodigy who works just as hard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago (2 children)

    I disagree, with the exception that some learn faster (which isn't "prodigy").

    Even the masters spent years, even decades training before creating their masterpieces. They copied, they failed, but above all, they worked hard for years to become good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 21 hours ago (1 child)

    Of course the masters worked hard. I'm saying that no matter how hard you work, you aren't going to become Mozart or Einstein. Hard work is important, but it also isn't the only factor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment