WIP wrote:
Example; there are 5 good car photographers all quiet equal... who got the job  ? the one that paid for the art dir fun time... yep and she did suck.

WIP wrote:
Ok one sentence at a time.
5 photographers all quiet capable.
One photographer pays for art dir to have some fun.
Fun came in the form of a prostitute.
Appeals to the art dir... photographer gets the job.

The best don't always make its the ones that know how to play the game. Some do  ' make it ' without playing the game but they are very few and far between.

Most photographers can produce a pack shot all very similar... but one puts on a very nice lunch.... deal done.

lol bullshit.. I very much doubt that actually happened.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Wow... Nicely done

why do you get so upset by this crap? it's hilarious, sure, but chillllllll 8-)

4 R D wrote:
This is very amusing.

+10

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Some people have a natural talent for certain things.

Defo some have that bs natural talent others have to pay for example getting models to get nakkid.


@ Karl JW Johnston; I'm not saying it's true or false and am certainly not saying which photographer.

A cliff hanger ending...

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Herman. With all due respect.
I used to go to Marcos exhibitions, and Steve McCurrys exhibitions in London.
The reason these ADs and campaign people and mag editors have no attention span is because they are inundated with people sticking stuff under their nose, by email etc. Then you go to these exhibitions, and they are there. You want to get noticed sometimes you have to go your own way until it's them chasing you.

Sure theres a long way to get to the top if doing things by climbing ladders. Other times, your creativity can be recognized via,other avenues.


It's particularly true in creative industry. The whole punk thing for example . There was a fast track to getting noticed across fashion art and music because it was happening as a movement without any ladders or arse licking or doing things the recognized way. The marketing people couldn't get enough of it.

As I said you are sometimes better off doing your own thing. Follow the crowd and you'll find an awful lot of people fighting to get on the bottom rung of the ladder following the crowd.

Where to start??????

The McCurry was a McCurry campaign. Using a hack (sarcasm ... I have most of his books) largely unknown photographer who has a few credits to his name. I seem to remember gnashing and wailing every time a major fashion mag. does an editorial and cover with a non-model. Oh, the cries of un-fair.

We know why they used the non-model and we know why they used Steve.
Bad example love. Especially since most of the images were mediocre (from a Bailey, Avedon, Testino point of view).

The punk thing you mention just verifies my comment about 'army ants'.

However your last paragraph is spot on.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

I read this totally differently. I read this as fun time meaning social/schmoozing and being liked and "suck" being an adjective to describe the quality of work, not a verb.


I may have totally misread it though.

Actually it was Natalia who first used suck as a description of the quality of work. Although she may have meant it in its other term. Who knows.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
There's no evidence for that. That's why I said: I don't believe in talent.

I certainly think you can train and practice and learn and work hard, and you should get somewhere. In creative industry however, that may just be at the level of say, a respected session musician, seamstress, a good graphic/commercial artist, or a competent studio photographer. They can all earn a decent living. They are master craftsmen, technicians.
Other people however appear to have a certain spark, flair, vision, passion.

So the brilliant session musician takes a back seat to a bunch of youngsters who can barely play a chord between them (Sex Pistols for eg), the seamstress is in the back room while a designed who can't sew for toffee takes the bow with models on the runway, and the illustrator inks a comic but an artist who can't draw a line wins the Turner prize /the Tracey Emins etc)

Now some may say ah yes but arguably those people are talentless, and are maybe just in the right place at the right time saying the right things and projecting the right image for the spirit of the age.

Maybe so. But also maybe the master craftsmen just never did those things. They were never the enfant terrible, never broke new ground by ignoring or destroying the old, never infected others with their passion, and never projected the creative spark that set things on fire.

In any case, there's two factors here that are nothing to do with training and expertise. On any case some people train and learn for a few years and then repeat. If it works they literally just repeat the same formula.

The two factors are
1. What some call talent because it appears effortless, and often is, but theres a visionary zeal, a passion, a flair, whatever you want to call those things that no amount if training can give you.
2. The opportunity factor, luck, being in the right place at the right time around the right people, having unbridled youth and the of the moment factor.


With most creatives, there's an element of both but it comes in different degrees. But certainly it's an industry that favours the fresh, the innovative, the person who 'unlearns' or destroys the rulebook to create. It's an industry that can should and does often favour youth and freshness.  Other people just do their own thing, follow their passion and they get lucky or they don't. Maybe they don't have great technical ability, or great vision, but their work strikes a chord with a group of people for a niche, or the public rather than the critics. I'm thinking latter wise for eg painter Jack Vettriano.


So I don't think the training v talent argument matters. Success comes to both in different ways, and failure comes to both equally being in the wrong place at the wrong time or by moments of madness throwing things away (Galliano for eg)


But what is clear to me is that in creative fields, training and practice may be important, but they are not everything, and while they can earn you a living in the back room , they are not a key to glory. And you don't necessarily have to be that proficient to create 'The New'.


So I think you can follow tried and trusted routes and follow the crowd, and hopefully get there. Or you can do your own thing and occupy a niche or carve one out, or you can blaze trails. As I said it sometimes pays to dare to be different. People here sometimes forget the 'create' part of the creative or they just haven't got it or don't get it. Then others have the 'talent' but often don't put the effort in. I think doing both isn't even a recipe for success. It's an industry where your success and,failure can balance on the whim of someone else or the spirit of the moment.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

I've never met anyone like that.

I've met some freakishly/jaw droppingly great people, but when you really get to know them you discover they've spent far, far more time than anyone else you know working on the most important aspect of what they do.

I have met people like that, and heard of them.

But also yes to your second paragraph.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

I certainly think you can train and practice and learn and work hard, and you should get somewhere. In creative industry however, that may just be at the level of say, a respected session musician, seamstress, a good graphic/commercial artist, or a competent studio photographer. They can all earn a decent living. They are master craftsmen, technicians.
Other people however appear to have a certain spark, flair, vision, passion.

So the brilliant session musician takes a back seat to a bunch of youngsters who can barely play a chord between them (Sex Pistols for eg), the seamstress is in the back room while a designed who can't sew for toffee takes the bow with models on the runway, and the illustrator inks a comic but an artist who can't draw a line wins the Turner prize /the Tracey Emins etc)

Now some may say ah yes but arguably those people are talentless, and are maybe just in the right place at the right time saying the right things and projecting the right image for the spirit of the age.

Maybe so. But also maybe the master craftsmen just never did those things. They were never the enfant terrible, never broke new ground by ignoring or destroying the old, never infected others with their passion, and never projected the creative spark that set things on fire.

In any case, there's two factors here that are nothing to do with training and expertise. On any case some people train and learn for a few years and then repeat. If it works they literally just repeat the same formula.

The two factors are
1. What some call talent because it appears effortless, and often is, but theres a visionary zeal, a passion, a flair, whatever you want to call those things that no amount if training can give you.
2. The opportunity factor, luck, being in the right place at the right time around the right people, having unbridled youth and the of the moment factor.


With most creatives, there's an element of both but it comes in different degrees. But certainly it's an industry that favours the fresh, the innovative, the person who 'unlearns' or destroys the rulebook to create. It's an industry that can should and does often favour youth and freshness.  Other people just do their own thing, follow their passion and they get lucky or they don't. Maybe they don't have great technical ability, or great vision, but their work strikes a chord with a group of people for a niche, or the public rather than the critics. I'm thinking latter wise for eg painter Jack Vettriano.


So I don't think the training v talent argument matters. Success comes to both in different ways, and failure comes to both equally being in the wrong place at the wrong time or by moments of madness throwing things away (Galliano for eg)


But what is clear to me is that in creative fields, training and practice may be important, but they are not everything, and while they can earn you a living in the back room , they are not a key to glory. And you don't necessarily have to be that proficient to create 'The New'.


So I think you can follow tried and trusted routes and follow the crowd, and hopefully get there. Or you can do your own thing and occupy a niche or carve one out, or you can blaze trails. As I said it sometimes pays to dare to be different.

Damn it.
There you go, doing it again.

I have to agree with you.

I would add that this slightly contradicts some of your earlier posts, but no matter.

And I would add that there is the 10,000 hours of practice/work thing as well. (although I think it is now somewhat disproved, but generally still works).

Herman Surkis wrote:
Damn it.
There you go, doing it again.

I have to agree with you.

I would add that this slightly contradicts some of your earlier posts, but no matter.

And I would add that there is the 10,000 hours of practice/work thing as well. (although I think it is now somewhat disproved, but generally still works).

To make a living maybe. But I doubt Tracey Emin put 10 000 hours of practice into making her bed, and the Sex Pistols probably didn't have 100 hours of practice.

How contradictory? I haven't an agenda or a point here I'm just exploring. Also, this isn't necessarily relevant for models we aren't artists as such.



Also, for the record, I've taken part in the odd,discussion about Art and Fashion here on MM, but a lot here actually don't seem that interested or knowledgeable about either. Not that I am the latter, but I'm interested. But I'm just a model what do I know. I guess I'm interested because as a,scientist, being on the fringes of creative world, and in some cases a fly on the wall in the heart of it, makes me feel more rounded as a person.

But theres a fair amount of contempt here in forums too for Art and Fashion. Plenty of respect for success and being able to earn the filthy lucre , which is odd coming from people who say models should do it for love not money. That's the real contradiction here. And we as models are definitely not a deferred gratification career 10 ,000 hours. We are the short term 'now' people that help you on your ladders to get where you are going. But we get paid for doing it now there's no long term future for most of us, and no artistic pretensions either.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I certainly think you can train and practice and learn and work hard, and you should get somewhere. In creative industry however, that may just be at the level of say, a respected session musician, seamstress, a good graphic/commercial artist, or a competent studio photographer. They can all earn a decent living. They are master craftsmen, technicians.
Other people however appear to have a certain spark, flair, vision, passion.

So the brilliant session musician takes a back seat to a bunch of youngsters who can barely play a chord between them (Sex Pistols for eg), the seamstress is in the back room while a designed who can't sew for toffee takes the bow with models on the runway, and the illustrator inks a comic but an artist who can't draw a line wins the Turner prize /the Tracey Emins etc)

Now some may say ah yes but arguably those people are talentless, and are maybe just in the right place at the right time saying the right things and projecting the right image for the spirit of the age.

Maybe so. But also maybe the master craftsmen just never did those things. They were never the enfant terrible, never broke new ground by ignoring or destroying the old, never infected others with their passion, and never projected the creative spark that set things on fire.

In any case, there's two factors here that are nothing to do with training and expertise. On any case some people train and learn for a few years and then repeat. If it works they literally just repeat the same formula.

The two factors are
1. What some call talent because it appears effortless, and often is, but theres a visionary zeal, a passion, a flair, whatever you want to call those things that no amount if training can give you.
2. The opportunity factor, luck, being in the right place at the right time around the right people, having unbridled youth and the of the moment factor.


With most creatives, there's an element of both but it comes in different degrees. But certainly it's an industry that favours the fresh, the innovative, the person who 'unlearns' or destroys the rulebook to create. It's an industry that can should and does often favour youth and freshness.  Other people just do their own thing, follow their passion and they get lucky or they don't. Maybe they don't have great technical ability, or great vision, but their work strikes a chord with a group of people for a niche, or the public rather than the critics. I'm thinking latter wise for eg painter Jack Vettriano.


So I don't think the training v talent argument matters. Success comes to both in different ways, and failure comes to both equally being in the wrong place at the wrong time or by moments of madness throwing things away (Galliano for eg)


But what is clear to me is that in creative fields, training and practice may be important, but they are not everything, and while they can earn you a living in the back room , they are not a key to glory. And you don't necessarily have to be that proficient to create 'The New'.


So I think you can follow tried and trusted routes and follow the crowd, and hopefully get there. Or you can do your own thing and occupy a niche or carve one out, or you can blaze trails. As I said it sometimes pays to dare to be different. People here sometimes forget the 'create' part of the creative or they just haven't got it or don't get it. Then others have the 'talent' but often don't put the effort in. I think doing both isn't even a recipe for success. It's an industry where your success and,failure can balance on the whim of someone else or the spirit of the moment.

How do you understand talent?

Do you have ONE example of talent?

Most successful creative people I've met, including people from the metal scene and classic music (composers), music theater and painters say they get mad when people call them "talented" because they worked their ass off to get there as they sucked in the beginning.

So WHO do you know that made it yet it was "talented" from the start.

ONE person.

Edit: I read your "sex pistols" - I will research what THEY THINK about themselves.... Tho I see punk more as a civil movement/statement than music as they said it themselves "we are not into music"



Xx

WIP wrote:
.


@ Karl JW Johnston; I'm not saying it's true or false and am certainly not saying which photographer.

A cliff hanger ending...

What's the point of even posting if you can't figure out for yourself if it's Bullshit or not ?

You're not saying true or false, and you're not saying who the photographer is...so does that mean it's true? What's this stuff about a "cliff hanger ending?" Sounds like you read too many books or watch too many movies: I doubt you've ever seen the inside of an ad agency or any other agency in a similar vein.

No arts major earning 70k+ a year is going to jeopardize their career to get a quick blow from some random contracted creative. Who do you think these people are? That's horribly insulting to everyone who's ever worked in that environment..

The creative directors and art people are so busy they barely have time to remember their own names, let alone know who the hell the photographer was they contracted out..they don't care. If that went on I don't even want to know how much damage it would do to the company, the staff, the client.. it'd be found out in no time. Silly statement.

Feverstockphoto wrote:
Eliza you have a talent for hitting the nail on the head sometimes. Well said/put in the above posts.

Thank you. X I know a lot of people here don't like me, but when all is said and done I am just trying to be helpful and value the wide variety of people here which is why I take part. I probably come across badly as argumentative but it's my nature to test a hypothesis. Star's op several of us have attacked but I think she is just trying to be helpful too. And it's all stimulated lively discussion, and hopefully made people think about where they are or going in the industry and how wide it is.

I don't see many here whose work and efforts I don't respect in some way. I like pictures and beautiful and thought provoking images. So I thought about this a lot and hope my contributions have helped too. It's not about someone being right or wrong, it's about different perspectives and contributing as a community.

Karl JW Johnston wrote:
What's the point of even posting if you can't figure out for yourself if it's Bullshit or not ?

You're not saying true or false, and you're not saying who the photographer is...so does that mean it's true? What's this stuff about a "cliff hanger ending?" Sounds like you read too many books or watch too many movies: I doubt you've ever seen the inside of an ad agency or any other agency in a similar vein.

No arts major earning 70k+ a year is going to jeopardize their career to get a quick blow from some random contracted creative. Who do you think these people are? That's horribly insulting to everyone who's ever worked in that environment..

The creative directors and art directors are so busy they barely have time to remember their own names, let alone know who the hell the photographer was they contracted out.. they don't care. The photographer, the illustrator, hell,  just about any single freelancer..they are so insignificant at the end of the day, in the grand process of campaigns of that size (auto campaigns = friggen enourmous $$$)

It's true it's about accountability.
And it's money men that ultimately the arts majors are accountable to.
But the sterling test can be in the field. At Art galleries and social events. They can see with their own eyes who is making waves. Harder to do on cold email or phone call approaches; and don't expect everyone to read the credits in Wonderland, though obviously that helps better than a small  ad campaign  for which the team has been paid well but often isn't credited.

You have to make yourself significant and you don't do that kissing ass but you do by making Art and making waves.
Or you can go the 10 000 hours and up the crowded  ladder route.and get there by being persistent and consistent.

But you want to get noticed when you have the chance of an exhibition or an editorial, it's like a festival gig for a band. It's a showcase and you have to kick it in and perform. Or you can be a session musician. It's all valid.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
It's true it's about accountability.
And it's money men that ultimately the arts majors are accountable to.
But the sterling test can be in the field. At Art galleries and social events. They can see with their own eyes who is making waves. Harder to do on cold email or phone call approaches; and don't expect everyone to read the credits in Wonderland, though obviously that helps better than an ad for which the team has been paid well but often isn't credited.

You have to make yourself significant and you don't do that kissing ass but you do by making Art.
Or you can go the 10 000 hours and up the crowded  ladder route.

You want to get noticed when you have the chance of an exhibition or an editorial, it's like a festival gig for a band. It's a showcase and you have to kick it in and perform. Or you can be a session musician. It's all valid.

Indeed..most creatives take the ladder route, or passively hope to catch the attention at the right time. they don't understand half a thing about sales..often the first step towards a sale is: simply, ask for it..and know who to ask it from, and when, and time it right. Cold call on Tuesday. Wait 2-3 days so people are happier and then call again and close on Thurs-Friday. Weekend is too late, they've forgotten who you are.

Next time you call; have a proposal put together or a portfolio that matches what the client is currently selling. In order to do that, you have to know the sales people more than the creative people. That's where it all trickles down from at the beginning

but before all that you have to know people which, is why networking like crazy with more than just your peers is so important. Understanding why and how people buy what you sell is more important than any of it. All of this can be taught, or learned, it just takes a long time and reoccurringly building up relationships doing good work that trigger the right people, in the right way, at the right time; when they require you, in the way they require you.

buying a car for an art director won't get you ahead over your peers
or flowers
or a prostitute
or baking fresh chocolate chip cookies

if anything they'll likely loose all respect for you. so will your peers. so will your network. it'll get around fast.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
How do you understand talent?

Do you have ONE example of talent?

Most successful creative people I've met, including people from the metal scene and classic music (composers), music theater and painters say they get mad when people call them "talented" because they worked their ass off to get there as they sucked in the beginning.

So WHO do you know that made it yet it was "talented" from the start.

ONE person.

Edit: I read your "sex pistols" - I will research what THEY THINK about themselves.... Tho I see punk more as a civil movement/statement than music as they said it themselves "we are not into music"



Xx

I would check out Vivienne Westwood and Jamie Reid and Pam Hogg  at the same time. You cannot even have any kind of realistic discussion in the UK about creativity without reference to them and the Pistols.
The whole point was stuff 10 000 hours and silver spoons.

I and reluctant to say people I know. I get accused of name dropping. Herman knows if hes done his homework on my fb friends. But suffice to say I worked at a major fashion house which was literally given birth to as a result of that explosion and it was full of exciting talent all around much of it my age. Not saying the experienced people weren't there too; it was a fusion. Best young visionaries, best experienced technical people.

Karl JW Johnston wrote:

What's the point of even posting if you can't figure out for yourself if it's Bullshit or not ?

You're not saying true or false, and you're not saying who the photographer is...so does that mean it's true? What's this stuff about a "cliff hanger ending?" Sounds like you read too many books or watch too many movies: I doubt you've ever seen the inside of an ad agency or any other agency in a similar vein.

No arts major earning 70k+ a year is going to jeopardize their career to get a quick blow from some random contracted creative. Who do you think these people are? That's horribly insulting to everyone who's ever worked in that environment..

The creative directors and art people are so busy they barely have time to remember their own names, let alone know who the hell the photographer was they contracted out..they don't care. If that went on I don't even want to know how much damage it would do to the company, the staff, the client.. it'd be found out in no time. Silly statement.

Bolded.
This is the silly statement, can you possibly be that naïve?

Two names, Monica & Bill. Enough said....
And you think the paltry sum of 70k a year is gonna deter someone?

Or shall I come back and list the hundreds of idiots who thought with their dicks and risked or lost everything.

Powerful politicians.
Heads of state.
Captains of Industry.
Clergy,
et.al

Cherrystone wrote:
Bolded.
This is the silly statement, can you possibly be that naïve?

Two names, Monica & Bill. Enough said....
And you think the paltry sum of 70k a year is gonna deter someone?

Or shall I come back and list the hundreds of idiots who thought with their dicks and risked or lost everything.

Powerful politicians.
Heads of state.
Captains of Industry.
Clergy,
et.al

A retired lawyer would probably call 70k a year paltry.

Arts major would have a very hard time earning that much.. more like 25-40k a year. Hell, many would be lucky to get even that

I can't believe you spelled Naive with an "ï" ...you took that little bit of extra effort for lil ol me? So sweet thanks cherry! You're my favorite person on these forums, always so nice and considerate

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
To make a living maybe. But I doubt Tracey Emin put 10 000 hours of practice into making her bed, and the Sex Pistols probably didn't have 100 hours of practice.

How contradictory? I haven't an agenda or a point here I'm just exploring. Also, this isn't necessarily relevant for models we aren't artists as such.



Also, for the record, I've taken part in the odd,discussion about Art and Fashion here on MM, but a lot here actually don't seem that interested or knowledgeable about either. Not that I am the latter, but I'm interested. But I'm just a model what do I know. I guess I'm interested because as a,scientist, being on the fringes of creative world, and in some cases a fly on the wall in the heart of it, makes me feel more rounded as a person.

But theres a fair amount of contempt here in forums too for Art and Fashion. Plenty of respect for success and being able to earn the filthy lucre , which is odd coming from people who say models should do it for love not money. That's the real contradiction here. And we as models are definitely not a deferred gratification career 10 ,000 hours. We are the short term 'now' people that help you on your ladders to get where you are going. But we get paid for doing it now there's no long term future for most of us, and no artistic pretensions either.

Twice in a row.
Stop it!

Yes, it is too bad that some demean 'art'.

And the 10,000 hours thing comes from research and a book, whose name escapes me and I am too lazy to look up. Part of it is the opinion (for one) that the Beatles were an overnight success. Totally dismissing the countless hours spent mastering their craft and playing in dives etc.

And too true that GENERALLY models come with a short term expiry date. But not the best, and that is mostly true only for 'haute couture' models. As you have often and very vocally pointed out, there are a lot of other forms of modeling. Is there any reason why a fit model who has the right dimensions cannot have a long career? Or why the product model being given the glass of milk by her mom cannot later on become the mom?

Somebody save me, I am taking Eliza's side.   

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I and reluctant to say people I know. I get accused of name dropping. Herman knows if hes done his homework on my fb friends.

Why would I bother?
You are attractive.
A good model.
And when you are not aggravating me, a lot of fun to talk to.
And when you go all sciencey, you are so hot ...  and I learn stuff.

Karl JW Johnston wrote:

A retired lawyer would probably call 70k a year paltry.

Arts major would have a very hard time earning that much.. more like 25-40k a year. Hell, many would be lucky to get even that

I can't believe you spelled Naive with an "ï" ...you took that little bit of extra effort for lil ol me? So sweet thanks cherry! You're my favorite person on these forums, always so nice and considerate

Many an arts major is lucky to be worth what a fry cook gets.

WIP wrote:
Lets add directors casting couch.

Only rumours. Never existed.

I have it on good authority, that no good director, or studio head would do such a thing and risk their reputations.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I would check out Vivienne Westwood and Jamie Reid and Pam Hogg  at the same time. You cannot even have any kind of realistic discussion in the UK about creativity without reference to them and the Pistols.
The whole point was stuff 10 000 hours and silver spoons.

I understand you like sex pistols and apparently everything related to them, but how does it answer my question?

Should I ask this people you mention personally if they think they were born with talent?

This has nothing to do with 10.000 hours, you can practice 10.000 of painting without ever looking at art, you will still suck.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I and reluctant to say people I know.

So you claim you were born with talent?
Talent for what?

I'm interested because I've NEVER met one person claiming this.

Well yes, someone said that to me, but he was a loser who never did anything worth mentioning so, he might have been talking out of his ass.
(This line is not a hint at you Eliza, but someone else)

I'm honestly curious about your conception of talent

Herman Surkis wrote:
I have to absolutely agree with a few posts.

It is absolutely ridiculous to conceive that:

the leader of a huge nation, earning a little more than $70 grand per year, would even think of risking their reputation, marriage, and career over getting a blow job from an intern.

Or that the leader of an ultra right wing church would risk getting caught in a public bathroom getting a bj.

Or that a well known actor with his own TV show would risk getting caught wanking off in a public porn theatre.

Or that the leader off a major country would risk his marriage with a beautiful wife and possibly his career, just for a short term affair.

Or that anybody would risk their marriages with all the attendant costs, just for a quicky in a hotel. 

And it is totally inconceivable that anyone who is basically incompetent has advanced in an organization, by sucking up to their boss. (ok, admit that usually they are very competent at taking credit for the work of others).

Nope, those things never happen and could never happen.

Well go and do it then

If that's what it takes, go and make someone in power happy.

Lol

Yes, sometimes it happens.

I know plenty of people who do photography successfully for a living. None of them
Did it like that.

All of them are good and work their asses off.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I understand you like sex pistols and apparently everything related to them, but how does it answer my question?

Should I ask this people you mention personally if they think they were born with talent?

This has nothing to do with 10.000 hours, you can practice 10.000 of painting without ever looking at art, you will still suck.



So you claim you were born with talent?
Talent for what?

I'm interested because I've NEVER met one person claiming this.

Well yes, someone said that to me, but he was a loser who never did anything worth mentioning so, he might have been talking out of his ass.
(This line is not a hint at you Eliza, but someone else)

I'm honestly curious about your conception of talent

No I wasn't born with talent I never claimed that I'm not a creative. Where did you get that idea from I haven't got an ounce of creative talent!  That's my point. I achieved what I have in the science field through hard work. Anybody can become a scientist it's just discipline. But it's different with the creative field. No amount of learning to draw is going to make me an artist. No amount of practice with instruments is going to make me a composer. I could be a competent draughtsman or play guitar in a covers band. That's it. I have a bit more clue in photography even though I have no patience to learn the craft, simply because I have a passion for geography. So I can take a geographical photograph as I understand composition and can 'see' and record what it is about geographical features and indigenous people etc that inspire me. So I've been published, won competitions etc. But to me it's just part of what I do it's not 'creative' as such, and neither is it an accomplished technician.


I don't like The Sex Pistols all that much. I just appreciate them and the creative explosion of the time and the fact its reverberations are still felt in many cutting edge creative phenomema happening today.
Our greatest artists fashion designers and musicians in the UK are riding the waves of that creative explosion even now. Vivienne Westwood obviously she was an originator, but think people like Damien Hurst and Tracey Emin part of that legacy.

And the emphasis of the punk ethic has and always will be on deconstructing and bricolage not the craftsmanship of masters. It's Dadaism, surrealism, and will always have a timeless yet radical aesthetic. It opposes conformity and it's valued by and inspires  the visionary.






So hope thats been put into context.



As for 'talent'. I don't know. As I said I'm exploring this. What I do know is that nature- nurture argument is not going to get sorted any time soon and the practice and training argument relates to that. Mozart didn't train for years. And as I said the fashion and art world, and the media world that leeches off it , is about new and fresh and while the ideal is fusion of new and traditional, craftsmanship and vision, it is an industry that has by nature to seek freshness and 'talent' over experience. The experience may back it up and nurture it but to create new you have to reject old or reassemble it.

I know many people in this game that are enfant terrible. As I said I'm reluctant to mention names, but no I don't think they'd say they trained to be one. You can train to be a brilliant craftsman or technician. You can't learn vision or passion or that 'spark' that certain creatives have that makes them exciting to be around. I think many creatives have an element of both. But it's the latter that make them different from conventional regular people and I don't know of that's a result if being born with it or manifesting due to environmental experience, but it's certainly not something you can learn in the same way you can learn by training and practice.

Whether they admit it or not I don't know. That sets them apart as elite. And in a world where egality, mediocrity, and the American dream of meritocratic access reigns, it's not something one shouts about. So I think they lend credence to the belief anyone can do it if they work hard.
They can't. They can become master craftsmen, and be rewarded for that. But there are also the enfant terrible and the visionary. Born with it? No idea. But they don't seem to thrive on formal training etc. and rejection of that is what often gets attention of the industry. Revolution sells. The shock of the new sells.  And those things generally don't come from those who have trained to become master craftsmen for fifty years they often come from twenty somethings with fresh spontaneous and unbridled ideas. And youth itself isn't responsible for that as most young people don't have that spark.


I mean David Lynch didn't train for years he just rubbed shoulders with artists and claims the fact his art college was so unstructured it gave him the opportunity to grow. He was making movies in his twenties. Where did his vision come from was he born with it? I think not. But here's an insight:
"My childhood was elegant homes, tree-lined streets, the milkman, building backyard forts, droning airplanes, blue skies, picket fences, green grass, cherry trees. Middle America as it's supposed to be. But on the cherry tree there's this pitch oozing out – some black, some yellow, and millions of red ants crawling all over it. I discovered that if one looks a little closer at this beautiful world, there are always red ants underneath. Because I grew up in a perfect world, other things were a contrast"  (David Lynch "Lynch on Lynch" Rodley)


I just think some people think about things like that, and it inspires them, and others ignore it. If you'd given Lynch a point and shoot camera then as a child he'd have produced an extraordinary image.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I just think some people think about things like that, and it inspires them, and others ignore it. If you'd given Lynch a point and shoot camera then as a child he'd have produced an extraordinary image.

Exactly!!

Intelligence

That's what I say: give an intelligent child a pensil And he will draw.

Mozart...
Ok, his father was a failed musician, his sister was a frustrated by gender musician. (Hey, you're 12 now, go get married as have kids!)
You REALLY believe Mozart was not sat into a piano when he was able to stand straight?

Ja!


Btw you say the debate won't be over...

The debate I don't understand, si ce in science one is supposed o provide evidence for one assertions.

I believe in talent. Really? What is talent? What evidence do you have of the existence of talent? Hm

Why is talent still a concept?

Feverstockphoto wrote:
On the talent point, here's something that may be of interest. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013 … nt-kaufman

Loved that! Thank you!

You gave me some basis for something else in writing about perception while deeply connected to this! I think I like you

X

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Exactly!!

Intelligence

That's what I say: give an intelligent child a pensil And he will draw.

Mozart...
Ok, his father was a failed musician, his sister was a frustrated by gender musician. (Hey, you're 12 now, go get married as have kids!)
You REALLY believe Mozart was not sat into a piano when he was able to stand straight?

Ja!


Btw you say the debate won't be over...

The debate I don't understand, si ce in science one is supposed o provide evidence for one assertions.

I believe in talent. Really? What is talent? What evidence do you have of the existence of talent? Hm

Why is talent still a concept?

Where Natalia did you read in my post that I thought it was inate? I think we are at cross purposes here. I've said quite the opposite.

In fact I'd go further than you. I think that intelligence is not inate either . I think if you take a toddler whose whole family is apparently not academically inclined and place him in the right environment with the right stimulus and give him a pencil you can teach him to draw. But it will still take accidental factors it's hard to teach and unquantifiable things like passion and interest, to make him a real artist as opposed to a draughtsman.

I believe I stated that 'talent' can be a combination of accident and environmental factors, and really apparently insignificant factors which simply stimulate a sudden awareness or inspiration. I am fully aware of the obscenity of poorly educated educators and politicians believing that children are predisposed by genetic factors to 'ability' and talent in certain fields and therefore denying those they believe do not posses such an equal opportunity.
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Pap … nnate.html

So I'm not saying it's inate - far from it -  and I do think belief that it is is a cause of social injustice as the above research indicates.

If you want  evidence that it is a manifest thing however,  that happens early by accumulation of environmental factors and accident however, then see Feverstocks citation above.



The problem is you appear to object to the word talent as it implies genetic disposition. I am saying that it's an accumulation of environmental factors, lucky moments, etc that predispose people to think and act in a certain way, much more quickly than others. That should not preclude others from access. But there is no doubt that individual personality traits, cultural experience, and accident and opportunity do give some a head start. Just things like passion and interest for example. Or a teacher that does encourage.

But whatever it is, some DO have a flair for certain things that does develop earlier than in others.
This can be overcome in.many areas. I know people I was at school with who far excelled me at science, yet they are primary school teachers or working in a pharmacy. I stuck at it and put in the work and did without money. Yes times I had to drop out and earn some (ha ha like modelling) but I've kept on. No talent, just graft.

But it is different in creative industry. While I totally agree talent is not inate, it is there. And because the creative industry needs the 'new' it's going to capitalise on young 'talent'. I think creative vision as a 'talent' may be the accumulation of accidental and environmental factors at an early age, it is not necessarily the result of training. You can't teach vision or passion as easily as technical skills and craft, formal training can actually stifle it, and it's something that often manifests in the young. Not from birth but from individual experience that often can't be repeated. If you never noticed the red ants you won't be David Lynch never matter how much you train in cinematography; and you won't be the Sex Pistols or Vivienne Westwood if you didn't have angst inspired by the experience of social injustice no.matter how trained a musician or seamstress you are. And those are often the things the industry feeds off to 'create' new aesthetics etc.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Loved that! Thank you!

You gave me some basis for something else in writing about perception while deeply connected to this! I think I like you

X

Glad i was of some help .

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
But it is different in creative industry. While I totally agree talent is not inate, it is there. And because the creative industry needs the 'new' it's going to capitalise on young 'talent'. I think creative vision as a 'talent' may be the accumulation of accidental and environmental factors at an early age, it is not necessarily the result of training. You can't teach vision or passion as easily as technical skills and craft, formal training can actually stifle it, and it's something that often manifests in the young. Not from birth but from individual experience that often can't be repeated. If you never noticed the red ants you won't be David Lynch never matter how much you train in cinematography; and you won't be the Sex Pistols or Vivienne Westwood if you didn't have angst inspired by the experience of social injustice no.matter how trained a musician or seamstress you are. And those are often the things the industry feeds off to 'create' new aesthetics etc.

We seemed to agree till this point. Where it appears you're saying the opposite you said in the first part of your post.

Is it innate? Or is it not?

Young does not mean innate. Adolescence is a GREAT stage to be noticed as we are the loudest there

Do you agree that a "talented" person could succeed in ANYTHING from painting to music if that "talented" puts the work in?

We disagree on something basic tho, you say it can't teach "passion, strive or vision"
I have started teaching and I "believe" It can be. I've been studied and training myself to teach. Researching and experimenting. Changing words and attitudes, testing people and their limits.

I'm very interested in Psycology (not only cognitive but psicoanalisis) and neurocognitive science and I follow it as much as Time allows and this very forums are very useful to me for its human virtual nteraction within one set of subjects

Nothing is set in stones and we don't know everything but we know more and we can use it.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
We seemed to agree till this point. Where it appears you're saying the opposite you said in the first part of your post.

Is it innate? Or is it not?

Young does not mean innate. Adolescence is a GREAT stage to be noticed as we are the loudest there

Do you agree that a "talented" person could succeed in ANYTHING from painting to music if that "talented" puts the work in?

We disagree on something basic tho, you say it can't teach "passion, strive or vision"
I have started teaching and I "believe" It can be. I've been studied and training myself to teach. Researching and experimenting. Changing words and attitudes, testing people and their limits.

I'm very interested in Psycology (not only cognitive but psicoanalisis) and neurocognitive science and I follow it as much as Time allows and this very forums are very useful to me for its human virtual nteraction within one set of subjects

Nothing is set in stones and we don't know everything but we know more and we can use it.

If you read on you'd see that I said what I think, and research supporters, talent to be. Not inate but the result of 'fast track' experiences , a fostering environment, and accidental individual incidents.
No I do not believe a 'talented' ( by which I mean someone whose environment and accidental incidents have fostered a passion for or interest in or disposition to creative expression etc) person can succeed at anything.
Anybody can learn photography. But that training cannot give you passion or vision. Those things are determined by environment culture and accident unique to the person. You cannot give people those idiosyncratic experiences, thought yes you can probably provide educational,experiences which help them be more ambitious and think outside their box in creativity terms. But as I said you can't teach angst, or passion for something. Often those stimuli happen in what we even call 'our formative years' . And then there are certain physical factors to do with one's genetics or accident of birth. Stephen Hawking will never play football for England.

I think again creative industry is,different. You have to learn the discipline of say scientific inquiry to be a scientist. You don't have to do that to be an artist. Everyone can express themselves, and some have a 'tendency' to do it well with minimum training and become part of the industry.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

If you read on you'd see that I said what I think, and research supporters, talent to be. Not inate but the result of 'fast track' experiences , a fostering environment, and accidental individual incidents.
No I do not believe a 'talented' ( by which I mean someone whose environment and accidental incidents have fostered a passion for or interest in or disposition to creative expression etc) person can succeed at anything.
Anybody can learn photography. But that training cannot give you passion or vision. Those things are determined by environment culture and accident unique to the person. You cannot give people those idiosyncratic experiences, thought yes you can probably provide educational,experiences which help them be more ambitious and think outside their box in creativity terms. But as I said you can't teach angst, or passion for something. Often those stimuli happen in what we even call 'our formative years' . And then there are certain physical factors to do with one's genetics or accident of birth. Stephen Hawking will never play football for England.

I think again creative industry is,different. You have to learn the discipline of say scientific inquiry to be a scientist. You don't have to do that to be an artist. Everyone can express themselves, and some have a 'tendency' to do it well with minimum training and become part of the industry.

Then we agree on everything except the teaching/Inspiring part

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Then we agree on everything except the teaching/Inspiring part

Yes pretty much. I think it was simply the interpretation of the word 'talent' being inate or not that was the issue. As I don't even believe in intelligence as such (measurement of it for example only appears to measure the ability to take intelligence tests) then I wasn't ever implying it was,something you were born with.


As for the teaching. Yes if course you can teach people and inspire them to some extent. But others appear not to require that and the collection of circumstances has given them that.


I think with older photographers,in particular, who have excelled in a field, and,taken up photography or art etc as a hobby, it's particularly difficult. I've been a life model and a model at photography workshops with such. Even with the willing and excellent tuition, it's difficult. A,real contrast with young motivated people with the passion for it. While the former may excel and enjoy the technical side if it, the flair is simply not there. If it had ever been, then perhaps the calling would have taken then into it sooner. Often, they appear in love with the idea, (with artists down to the beret and expensive materials and equipment) and the technical side of things like it's engineering or something. They can still produce exquisitely crafted work. But there's that unquantifiable flair factor that appears 'natural' (though agreed it is not).


As I said you can provide experiences that mimic angst, but it's hard for people with a comfortable cushion to really have that as a driving factor. You can teach people to look at the ants but they won't have had that magical moment of self discovery themselves. You can't simulate those idiosyncratic experiences of the formative years that culminated in the desire to create without consideration of financial security, social status, non conformity, or the insecurity of an unstructured environment. Being a creative is a lifestyle choice that those people never made. The very fact so many think it is a ladder to climb, rather than a country to explore, shows what you are up against. Let alone the 'fever' for want of a better word,  to create itself,  and disinterest in success for its own sake.


That's not to say it applies to all. I know absolutely talentless young creatives, posers if you like,  who are also lazy and without technical skill to boot who've created an illusion thats got them where they are. And I know older photographers, and artists, who've taken it up more recently and do have a flair and passion for it. Some here I can think of.

Then you get people of course who have climbed the ladder and got success by playing the rules. But many will never be true artists: master craftsmen yes. As I said at the outset, there is,a,place for all these people. But the young with flair to me seem to produce the cutting edge stuff that the industry particularly needs.

When I worked in Shoreditch as a life model, I'd go to the pub after, or a gallery preview, or indie film showing, or a gig, or a burlesque,  with young artists, musicians, dancers, photographers, film makers, muas, hair stylists, other models, computer gaming creator geeks, graphics students,  fashion designers etc. The ad agency guys....you know the ones with the cultivated image of "creative industry exec" with their trendy little briefcases and Lenin beards and specs and crumply linen suits, or the "blahs" , would be drawn to us like a magnet. I wasn't the only one to get work from it. I guess they were slumming it to tap into that kind of raw flair for inspiration for their clients. Either employing it or stealing from it. None of those people would be knocking the ad guys door or sending them emails or begging them to look at their portfolios. And then the gallery events in particular, the creative CEOs would actually turn up. After all, many of them were part of  that scene to start with and like to feel connected with it still. I think they don't like mixing it with the corporate financial people either; so it's more akin to social needs, to inspiration for themselves, and of course for ....dare I say it....'talent scouting' .
I've noticed here a certain hostility by some to that kind of arts scene - the idea for example it's not what you know it's who you know. But sorry there is a reason that they want to know those people.

Herman Surkis wrote:

Actually it was Natalia who first used suck as a description of the quality of work. Although she may have meant it in its other term. Who knows.

I think we're better off letting that tangent die.