This was drawn by an 8-year old girl. How many 8-year olds in the world are capable of drawing like this?

I probably still won't be able to if I'll live to the age of 100.

http://www.artakiane.com/vid-cnn-spi...oungartist.htm
(ignore the spiritual crap)

Perhaps. As I said, people learn at different speeds, this girl simply picked up how to paint very fast, good for her. I'd say give it less than 8 years and you could paint like that, it's not as hard as it looks.

I seriously doubt it, but who knows. Unfortunately(?) we will never find out, because I haven't painted in well over 8 years and don't plan on starting soon.

But that's the problem pork alluded to. Why sit around trying to break new ground for its own sake? I do think some people lack talent--I often fear that I'm one of them. It sucks, etc. But that's not the point of art. You don't need to succeed to get anything out of trying. And as you said (sarcastically, I know): Nobody knows who's talented until they tap into that talent (and that often requires years and years of work anyway; not everyone who is talented is immediately talented). So everyone should keep trying because you might be talented, and if not, it was a fun ride. That's how life works.

What I'm saying is, everyone should want to succeed and try to succeed in whatever they want, but there can be no shame in failure if you're trying. It's all about the process and the hope, because until your dying day you can't know your potential. And even then, your potential might not be recognized until you're dead. So always keep trying.

mozart never made drafts for his music. he heard the whole peice nin his head, and just wrote it
beethoven would go through entire notebooks just to find the perfect THEME for a movement
mozart died poor without a pot to piss in, and nobaody was at his burial (7 people came to his funeral)
beethoven was immensly rich 20,000 people came to his funeral

can one say that mozart was more talented that beethoven? if he was, does that make him a better composer?
does it matter?
am i making any sense?
probably not
oh well

oh and TINH
i do not think that with enough practice anybody can play anything. i think a good example is dream theater, i dobt that they can correctly play (ie dynamics emotion etc) a peice by rodrigo, paco de lucia, or john fahey.

That is plainly not what I was saying at all, but go ahead and put words in my mouth if you like. I'm not interested in being baited into pointless arguments.

I was not trying to put anything in your mouth my friend. But your view essentially means that anyone of the "non-talented"'s attempts to express themselves are totally futile. I'm sorry, but thats what the concept of talent and inborn creativity means.

Anyway, regressive PARTY, anyone?

I think it's true that anyone, given the right amount of training and dedication, could do something like a, for argument's sake, Picasso. But can they be trained to think in such a way that would enable them to create a Guernica of their own? The problem is that we don't really understand how he came up with it, so how can we learn it? In that sense I tend to agree with Acousticrock's argument above. You can teach someone how to do something that already exists, but not something that's yet to happen.

This is very true. However, you can teach them the output from which the thing that is yet to happen will come from, ie. painting or playing guitar. Essentially what irritates me about the concept of talent is it so often equated with skill, painting and drawing 'well' and playing guitar 'well'. But these are still skills, and all skills can be learnt, by anyone, by following instuctions. How often, in proportion to painters, do you hear conceptual, installation etc. artists being described as talented? No often enough, anyway.

I beleive creative talent is innate in everyone on earth. Often they need to be taught skills to fully realise these talents and transfer successfully their ideas to sound or a visual image, and this is very possible, albeit difficult sometimes. The difference between artists and people who don't create is merely their attitude to their creativity, whether it is something they want to explore, or not. The idea that some people just don't have the capacity to be creative is rediculous, and it plainly avoids how amazingly capable of reacting to their experiences and surroundings every human being is. However, some people with great creative potential see these activities as a waste of time, and thats the really sad thing.

Yeah and it's a fucking ugly picture.

Some people are just idiots. Some people are better than others. I'm not a communist.

Here, have a cookie sweetiepie...

Of course it is, but that's completely beside the point.

Did I have to mention that? Do you think fugazifan likes Dream Theater?

Dictator. I bet a lot of those people don't even like what they're listening to, but they are doing it for queen and country.

But see, this gets into sketchy free-will/fate territory. What you're saying might be true, but it's a complete guess. It's essentially faith in human potential, which is fine, but there's no way to argue it unless you veer off into "practical denial"--like, just believing something because it makes you happier to believe it's true (which I'm actually all for--just not in this case).

The problem is, if someone has "creative potential" and no motivation to use it, how could that person possibly prove themselves to have creative potential? If someone has an idea that they're not presenting, as far as I'm concerned, they don't have an idea. You can't know that unmotivated people have creative ideas, and even if you could, what difference does it make? Something in them makes them lazy, which is just as bad as not being creative.

I really can't take this conversation seriously. It's depressing.

That's heart-warming. I'm suspecting the one on the right however of having secretly turned off her hearing-aid.

You've made some fine points, but thats not fair - They're not unmotivated or lazy, they're just doing other things with their lives than drawing pretty pictures. Y'know, like doing a job, raising a family.

You're right. I was more describing myself in that instance. I wish I were an artist, but I'm so lazy it's painful. But yeah, I should give everyone the benefit of the doubt, because more often than not they simply have priorities.

You're right that artists not working in paint tend to be fairly heavily stigmatised because of their rejection of a 'traditional' medium. More generally though, I think that the sad fact is that most artists, regardless of whether they're painters, sculptors, conceptualists, whatever, simply aren't all that good at it. I mean, in terms of living artists, there are a vast number that are enormously successful but it's doubtful that many of them will go on to be recognised as being anything particularly special in years to come. Gerhard Richter and Bruce Nauman maybe, but not many others. My point is that anyone can be trained to become an artist, just as anyone can be trained to become a guitarist. And with dedication and the right training, they can probably be quite successful at it, at least on a commercial level. I just don't think you can equip someone with an insight into what they're doing that will enable them to transcend their training and dedication. You can give them stuff and they can absorb it, but what they ultimately end up doing with it is something else altogether.

Damien Hirst is an entertainer. Tracey Emin is still a teenager.

Tracey Emin is an entertaining teenager. Damien Hirst entertains teenagers.

Haha that's brilliant! Absolutely perfect, spot on!

Ah I can't rep you for it.

I would say most 'art' today is actually entertainment based on this definition of mine: art has to either attempt to be beautiful or attempt to express something (this can be anything, a feeling, an idea, a political opinion etc however complex or simple) or attempt to do both these things at once. A piece of art can also attempt to be ugly/repulsive but only in the occasion when something is being 'said' in it otherwise there is no reason for it - why put yourself through suffering by looking at something ugly that has no aim behind it? Someone like Damien Hirst doesn't do any of these things so he isn't an artist; his 'art' is there as a diversion for the masses; it is an opportunity for the masses for self-congratulatory pseudo-musing. He clearly plucks any random thing that pops into his mind and then gets other people to make it.

EDIT - Failing at an attempt ie creating something shit but still attempting to be beautiful still counts as art as does trying to express something but failing to get it across. It doesn't count as good art though.

Had I known that, I wouldn't have bothered!

Either way. I can't help noticing that Roberts is raising the bar quite considerably at the moment:

Wow that's a really nice picture, she looks lovely. Don't worry, I'll rep you for it in the future.

Dude shes the most ugly one!

But really talented.


Ha ha.

At first I wasn't actually convinced that it was her so I checked a group picture and, indeed it is.



In terms of Damien Hirst, I tend to think he's someone who has done some great stuff but that his reputation has become almost terminally stained by his media profile. People just don't seem to trust the bugger. In that sense he sort of reminds me of Gordon Ramsey: someone else who seems to have become more famous as a parody of themselves, rather than for what they actually do quite well.

PHILISTINE!

I pretty much only have a negative view of him.

I don't think I could possibly claim that Damien Hirst is not an artist. I don't like his stuff, nor do I find it interesting or expressive, but if I can't call him an artist then what is he? I believe that an artist is anyone who claims to create art, but in exchange for such a broad definition, I'm quick to say that an artist is a talentless hack.

I stumbled upon a Valerie Solanas-themed house party once and some chick was seriously advocating resurrecting her to execute Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons.

Sign me up, i'm sure i could come up with a list as long as your arm of further candidates once koons and hirst have been despatched with

No the point is to do these thing because you enjoy them not because you're on a quest for glory. There is not set path for creating art but to suggest that everyone is equally capable is naive at best.

What's the connection to communism?

I think what you're saying betrays either that you are uncomfortable with being more capable at some things than other people, or that you are too much of a big head to be able to accept that there are other people who will always be better at certain things than you are, no matter how hard you try, and judging by your responses i'd say it's more likely to be the latter.