No, I'm not assuming the difference 'must be' anything. I'm stating that someone who can't stay on key will never be a good singer, no matter how much training they get. I'm stating that natural talent will determine how much training a person needs to reach the top (or even the middle range) of success. Obviously, someone with talent who doesn't develop it may not be, in the end, better than someone with lesser talent who does develop it. That doesn't negate the fact that they have that talent and others do not. My niece is an incredible artist, with no formal training (she's a doctor by career). I can draw a little. It would take a lot more training and practice for me to become an artist anywhere near her level of natural talent, and frankly, I doubt I could. I'm not going to belittle that natural talent she has just because I don't have it. I accept that some people are just born with talent in areas that I am not. I see no reason to claim there is no such thing when the world is full of examples.
If I spent every day of my f***ing life studying and aspiring to everything that they did. Sure I could. These people are not gods. They are the same as each and everyone of us.
During the course of Van Gogh's life, had you been told you "paint as well as Van Gogh" it would not have been a compliment.
No I do not. Because it works the other way as well. Chalking success up to having a "gift" negates all of the hard work that went toward that success. So let's say that you bust your butt and publish an amazing novel. It takes you years of toil and sweat and people telling you you're just a hack. Then you publish the book and you win praise and riches. Then I walk up and say "Well of course it was a success, you have a gift for writing." So basically, your achievement born of sweat and anguish has been reduced to a simple fluke of nature. I used to think I was bad at math. Then, I studied philosophy where I learned about learning for the sake of loving knowledge. It was like a light switch. I went and took math courses and suddenly I was holding my own. If you want it, you work for it. If you get it, it is through your efforts not a divine endowment.
He may have been humble, but there's also a lot of truth to what he said. Some biographers have argued that during his late teens and early 20s, he learned more about science and math from his private studies than he did in his university classes. In fact, his academic achievements were fairly mediocre. This whole concept boils down to the nature vs. nurture debate, which will always be an ongoing debate. But the important thing here is that we agree that Newton was one smart cookie. As for music, unless you're tone deaf, you should have no problem "singing" the correct notes with a little training. I've found that pitching is actually fairly easy if you have an instrument to mess around with.
I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that success comes out of pure talent alone. It is always paired with hard work. None of us can sensibly argue that the masters of literature and art and other areas did not work hard - saying that they have a gift for it doesn't take away their hard work or accomplishment. Why is the idea of having a gift so offensive to people, it appears? Just an impression I got from some replies on here. We're all endowed with some things - we all have areas where we're better at already more so than others, even if we argue and believe that we can achieve whatever we want through sheer hard work - it is still true that we are born with more skill in some areas over others, we have to work harder, or less hard, in different areas. That aptitude - that initial thing, for me, an instinct in a particular area, that somehow you just know some thing and you try it and it works - is a gift, whether you believe it to be by God or by the genetic lottery. You did not earn it, you were born with it. But leave a shoot to grow without water or sun or nurture and it will die, and never bloom into the tree that it should be. That's where work comes in. (this is an incomplete analogy, I understand - in real nature plenty of trees grow without deliberate nurture - but I'm sure you understand what point I'm trying to make)
Totally agree with you that this is a nature vs nurture debate - I personally don't think it's versus anything. I think it's quite clearly both and nobody will ever be able to argue conclusively or prove just to what extent do nature and nurture influence us, what's the balance between the two, that is. I think we're in agreement then. Newton clearly has a gift for something, maybe just pure intelligence, who knows - and on top of this he worked hard. He had private studies and he went to university (so I will assume he did a bit of work, he didn't just sit and decide he'll be a farmer and never look upon a book again). Sometimes some people don't realise they're good at something. And as for singing - you can sing in tune and practice, sure, but you can never make your voice sound beautiful. There're some voices that are soothing to the ear and others that are not. Whether that itself is a skill though is debatable
My first step would be to find a list of the people with "the gift" or whatever you want to call it. That would be a fun assignment because the disagreements would be endless. Next step would be to drill down into their lives and find commonality. I do believe in natural talent but I would guess those that make it on natural talent alone are considered outliers.
I agree that nothing is achieved through divine endowment, as I am not religious in the least, and I am not saying that success is only derived from natural talent. I agree with you 100% that hard work is a prerequisite for any worthwhile achievement. I do believe, however, that some people have an inherent ability to create art (in this case, fiction) that some people cannot hope to match, regardless of how much they sweat and anguish. Some of those talented people never reach their potential, whether for laziness or something else, and I think that in the end, a hard worker with adequate talent will trump a lazy worker with a wealth of talent. The hard workers with incredible talent are the ones I'm interested in. I'm just curious about the nature of their talent, and how they felt about it, for no other purpose than to sate my curiousity. This is an interesting discussion and one that I intend to learn from.
With enough training you can. My friend sang in the choir in middle school and high school. Back then his voice was very average. He started taking vocal lessons in college and has been taking them for about two years now. His voice sounds amazing after all that coaching and practice. Of course, the quality of the teacher makes a big difference, so that's definitely one factor. Also, different voices are beautiful/soothing to different people. I think the subjectivity in art is what makes it so hard to measure an artist's greatness. For example, there are several critics and writers who think Shakespeare is overrated. And then there are others (like Tolstoy) who think he's just plain bad.
There are a lot of people that work really hard at their passion and are still really, really bad. That ios evident by writers who write all the time and still are terrible. And there are others who are naturally excellent and don't pursue it for lack of passion. I can draw amazingly well, and have barely ever worked at it. I just had the ability, but frankly, couldn't care less. Explain that with 'hard work' not 'talent'.
If I am to add my two cents, I believe there is a certain level of success, or skill, that can be attained through hard-work. But, on the subject of 'gift' or 'talent' or whatever variable word you would like to insert here to describe some measure of SOMETHING that's inborn, I have to make an opinion-based claim that the competence, or skill rather, is not exactly what make the greats, well, great. It was their perspective, enhanced by their ability to swiftly and skillfully transfer thought to page and convey cosmatic meaning. Each had a unique way of internalizing their reality, an extremely acute perception. I believe this to be the something that is inborn, the thing that cannot be taught, shown yes, otherwise we would not have such magnificently vibrant works that have weathered the storms of time like ageless oaks, but still never perfect in the exchange between one to another. You either view the world in a similar lens as they, or you don't. But who is really the judge of whether or not what you see is true, or false? Semantics, maybe. Anyway, one man looks at a painted landscape and sees trees, while another sees people, and the great writer looks at the painting and sees life, and then that's where the skill comes in to capture it and put it in coherent words. To describe the undescribable, to paint the unpaintable, to see what the rest of the world can only dream. Does that make sense? /discuss.
Again, you're assuming the existence of "natural talent", but you have yet to demonstrate how that is quantifiable. Hell, you haven't even defined it yet. What is natural talent? Tell us. You have no idea what natural talent even is. You cannot give us any, and I mean any objective metric for it: cranial capacity, neural connections, eye color, nothing. What do you even mean when you say this? I repeat what I posited earlier: you're begging the question. You're assuming what you set out to prove. You have yet to question your own premises. I see no reason to accept the implied premise that formal training is the only way to learn the principles of an issue. I also see that by describing her talent as "natural", you are still assuming what you have yet to prove. If you wish to show that talent is present at birth, you need to define the measures you're using and show that newborns differ in them. This is simple reasoning. You can't say that some have it at birth and others don't, but when asked for evidence of that, at birth, skip out. Simply saying, "Well, they have it when they're older" is assuming your premises are correct. That's fatuous reasoning. Also, you seem to think that my saying that talent is not innate belittles talent, but you have it exactly backwards. Because talent is learned, it is even more to the credit of the artist. Please don't impute unsavory views to me, eh?
Evidence, please? Data? Numerics? The only offense taken here is my scientific sense. There's an awful lot of unsupported claims being thrown around. Put some data on the line if you want to change some minds.
Would anyone care to expand on the point I bring to the table? In re to what could possibly serve as a definition for the 'inborn' thing/talent/gift?
Golden Ghost, I believe what you're referring to is simply "vision." Inborn talent, in so far as writing is concerned, I think is more comparable to the inborn talent of an incredible actor, singer, or speaker. These people possess a certain magnetism in their respective fields. In the case of writing, everything comes out in such a way that it just draws the reader. Obviously, the work has been crafted and designed (or at least could be) for that effect, and it might still take a naturally talented person some time and effort to produce something that appears effortless- that's just good illusion. Are there people with all the time in the world who would still be unable to produce a manuscript that consumes its readers? Well, I'll leave that answer to the people who want an absolute answer on whether inborn talent actually exists or not and the role it plays in writing.
Why the argumentative tone? This is a forum, besides - a writers' forum - if you want medical science and statistical data, I suggest you head for a different forum. This is only an amateurish discussion - I'm sure there're a few scientists amongst us, who knows, but it'd be save to say most of us probably can't regurgitate data nor can we be bothered to google up this info for the sake of one forum thread. The aim is discussion - not necessarily changing minds. If you feel as though someone's trying to change your mind, then that is your perception, but suffice to say I simply do not care enough to provide you with such data. And maybe you should provide some scientific data to prove that nothing is based on any sense of inborn talent, and perhaps prove the case that "inborn talent" does not exist in any way, shape or form. You can't? Or perhaps you can, but can't be bothered? Great, no problem. Neither can I - either prove conclusively or to actually be bothered enough to muster so much effort in trying to prove it. It's a discussion. If it displeases you, you don't have to read the thread, you know. This whole nature-nurture debate has no answer besides, it's why we're still arguing this. So why not just agree to disagree? It's just a platform of different opinions, after all, and none of us claims to be, or has ever claimed to be, experts.
Okay, THump - no, I don't know if my niece had this talent at birth. Nobody gave her a pencil to draw with so that opportunity was lost. I do know that without any training of any sort, she did, at a young age, pick up said pencil - and pen, and brush - and produce artwork which was extraordinary for someone of her age. If you don't want to accept the existence of natural talent, and want to close your eyes to the obvious examples all around you, nothing I can say will change your mind. Many things aren't quantifiable - like why a person likes certain foods but hates others - but if you feel they don't exist without that numbers thing, go right ahead. Not sure how you can exist in a largely non-existent world, but...
methinks the naysayers may really just be subconsciously envious of the comparatively few truly talented among us, so disbelieving the existence of talent makes them feel better... i, for one, have no problem with acknowledging the existence of the inborn 'gifts' of the most 'talented' artists, writers, et al. among us... nor with giving due credit to those who, through hard work and dedication, have overcome the lack of such 'gifts' to achieve success in their fields, albeit not actual 'greatness'...
Some people are naturally talented, this is just a fact, it's uncontroversial. Even if you don't like some writers, you are almost forced to at least admit they are talented, like Stephen King; there is a lot you can criticize about him, but he has been read and enjoyed by a lot of people. There something about King that a lot of people like, and he's a great story teller, this is something that you either can or can't do. For myself, I don't actually know if I'm fantastically talented, but writing has always been something I've always been good at and something I've found easier than I sometimes feel comfortable admitting, even during my earlier days when I picked up some very bad writing habits, I've fixed a lot of them and have improved a lot over the few years I've been writing, and I have been published. I know I have something, but do I think I'm going to be the next 'Great'? Hahaha, no.
Agreed. It is possible - even essential - for would-be writers, artists etc., to appreciate the inborn skills of those who have those 'gifts' that produce the work that inspire the rest of us. To do otherwise is, imo, immature.
Having feelings imputed to me that aren't extant is a little annoying, to be honest, so if I come across as a little crusty, you should know that it's not because we disagree about the nature of talent, but rather, because I'm being told I'm offended when I'm not. As far as your invitation to leave this forum, no thanks, I'll post as I please. If you have a problem with one of my posts, report it to a moderator. That's fine. My bent is to reject unsupported claims. If you don't care enough to dig up support for your claim, then don't chafe me as being "offended" when it's simply a matter of not accepting bald claims. Here: The emphasized passage is the only point that I'm making here, really. However, the inability of infants to express themselves artistically, and the necessity for acquiring the necessary skills through some form of training (be it organized or self-guided) seems self-evident to me. And likewise, you need not agree with me for us to get along ... but telling someone to discuss elsewhere or don't read or contribute to a thread is kinda rude, too. If you don't like my posts, you can certainly ignore me. I ask questions; it's deep in my makeup. I understand that that makes some people uncomfortable. I enter into these sorts of discussions in the hopes of learning something which I hadn't known, which is exactly why I ask for sources for claims. You can certainly change my mind, but you cannot do it without sourcing this claim that talent is inborn. Your point not only suffers from this lack of data, it is also vague insofar as "talent" hasn't even been defined, as GoldenGhost points out. I'm not "closing my eyes" to anything -- my eyes are wide open seeking support for your claim. If your point here is that talent is as subjective as culinary taste, then making a baldly objective claim such as "talent is innate" is inapt. If your point is simply an opinion bereft of fact, it's cool.
