|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
TALENT is BS
I don't believe in talent I believe in being intelligent, HARD WORK and dedication. http://www.worth1000.com/artists/NataliaT Those are the things I did when I started - Talented? I don't think so. I show you mine, show me yours. Show there's no such thing as talent and we all sucked in the beginning. x May 17 13 03:38 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: Both. May 17 13 03:44 pm Link Maybe it's like being lucky vs. making your own luck May 17 13 03:52 pm Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: They weren't intelligent May 17 13 03:55 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: Hmmmmmmmm . . . May 17 13 03:58 pm Link From 2007 When I first started photography shooting my sister as my only subject those were my first couple of shoots Photography and retouching by me. Yes the retouching was pretty awful.    May 17 13 03:59 pm Link noise removal plug in? May 17 13 04:03 pm Link I'm lost. How is talent bullshit? It's one thing to criticize innate talent, or talent that you're born with sure, everyone struggles in the beginning but talent can be developed and grown. But this doesn't mean that everyone will be equally talented. All things being equal, there will be those who have a higher aptitude for any given artistic endeavor with comparatively little effort while others will struggle despite their best efforts. May 17 13 04:06 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: I don't even remember I know it was surface blur with the last 2 with the first shot I had mistakenly shot it at ISO 400 and I was dead set the shot was ruined because of noise even though there was virtually none. I was definitely tripping so I'm pretty sure I most likely use a noise removal on that one. May 17 13 04:07 pm Link Ruben Vasquez wrote: Our crafts are pretty technical I guess talent/Vision can be tought if you study it enough and are smart enough to grasp it. for example if you like a photo if you study it enough and are intelligent in your execution it should be no problem replicating it. May 17 13 04:07 pm Link A-M-P wrote: Pretty much... May 17 13 04:10 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: Intelligence & talent. That's a different story. But I can tell you one story about wine tasting. I have a friend that cant' tell the difference between Gallo and a good wine. He has millions and has friends who can afford the best. Buying and being exposed to expensive wine is not an issue. He goes to parties and dinners with the best wine money can buy, but he can't taste the difference. He's also one of the smartest people I know. May 17 13 04:13 pm Link A-M-P wrote: The technicality of photography and retouching is one aspect that I love but content reigns supreme. The ubiquitous technically perfect but boring image comes to mind. Imitating is easy. Creativity is a talent that's far more challenging to learn. May 17 13 04:14 pm Link It reminds me a of quote from Gary Player. After sinking three difficult puts, the person he was playing with said to him "I’ve never seen anyone so lucky in my life." Player responded "Well, the harder I practice, the luckier I get.” I feel the same way about talent. As a photographer you can now shoot 1000 shots and one of them is bound to come out looking pretty good. I don't know that many photographers who can shoot one or two shots and get what they want from the image pretty much every time. That skill is the result of hard work, practice and dedication to your craft. I don't think there are any short cuts. May 17 13 04:23 pm Link It's harder for those who don't have talent to compete with those who do. However, like potential, if we don't make something out of it, it's pretty useless. May 17 13 04:26 pm Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: Did he TRY learning the difference or is he a party drunk? Leonard Gee Photography wrote: Creativity I won't discuss, it's an even broader concept. Bot none of the things you mention need "talent" you learn about color theory and you apply it, with the eye you develop by LEARNING about traditional art. It was discovered that lucky people have two characteristics that "unlucky" people don't. One, they are more optimistic. Two, they notice clues that other people don't notice. Don't believe in "luck" or "lack of luck" either. May 17 13 04:27 pm Link Ruben Vasquez wrote: Nature vs Nurture, someone born into a family of artist will have a better start. Mozart comes to mind May 17 13 04:28 pm Link Click Hamilton wrote: Thank you May 17 13 04:29 pm Link The problem with using the word "talent" is that by definition, it means a natural aptitude. Whatever we have or don't have, we can build upon our strengths and avoid our weaknesses. Very few people have it all. May 17 13 04:32 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: I wonder what my excuse is then. I consider my aunt, my cousin and my sister to be far superior artists than me. May 17 13 04:37 pm Link Ruben Vasquez wrote: You say that and you don't see it? I recommend therapy May 17 13 04:40 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: I think I misunderstood. I guess we're just our own worst critic. May 17 13 04:47 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: Talent exists. I see it often in people, in the way they approach tasks, that cannot be taught or learned by others, not with years of trying. That you have not seen it or believe that it can simply be trained is not disproving its existence. That you learned how to retouch images doesn't meant that others don't have talents which made it easier for them. May 17 13 05:43 pm Link Not a huge amount of talent in retouching or button pushing that's why so many do it but how many can paint like Rembrandt..... that takes talent. May 17 13 05:56 pm Link Talent is what raises anybody above the level of "competent", "proficient" or "good enough". Natalia, don't underestimate your own talent. Just because somebody's first efforts aren't outstanding doesn't mean they don't have talent - we all have to start somewhere. Talent is accelerated by hard work and ability to embrace criticism, of course, but without talent all you have is competent but uninspired medocrity, particularly in artistic fields such as photography and retouching. And yes, retouching (in my view) is very much an artistic pursuit. It takes an artist to know what looks 'right' or 'cool' as opposed to what is merely technically correct. Just my $0.02 Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com May 17 13 06:06 pm Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: Now, now. Just because the shutter button is easy to push doesn't mean there isn't at least a little bit of art in photography. May 17 13 06:11 pm Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: In Rembrandts time the technical skill to paint was far more common, you are over valuing it (because you never tried?). The talent to make the right image in any media is an entirely different skill then how to actually work with the media. Physical dexterity isn't really a talent... May 17 13 06:12 pm Link Hmm I disagree in some ways - I teach workshops in fashion photography and one thing you can't teach is for someone to have a creative eye - they either have it or they don't they can be great at all the technical stuff but lack a creative aesthetic and cant "see" what is missing. I define this as "talent" its what separates the good creatives from the great. I have worked with retouchers who are very experienced and have put the hours in and are very skilled and dedicated but are in my opinion not as talented as those who just have the ability to take things to the next level and who understand light and nuances in a creative way. I do think putting in the hours and being dedicated will help you to craft your skill but some people just have that extra element of creativity that in my opinion makes them more talented. May 17 13 06:28 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: Not necessarily. Art history is littered with dusts of many failed artists in their own time but now considered art geniuses. Vincent van Gogh, and Paul Cezanne were stupid, lazy and undedicated? Some may be able to develop their skill set well enough to make comfortable living but that doesn't mean they have become "talented" in the classical sense. What sets geniuses apart is pure talent. How about examples, such as Caravaggio , and Johannes Vermeer? May 17 13 06:30 pm Link I really disagree that there is no such thing as talent. I've seen images taken by kids that have virtually zero technical skill and the images might even be devoid of technical correctness, such as exposure. But there exists a captivating motion, balance, juxtaposition of elements that make the image interesting to look at. To me that's talent. They can then learn about the technical and using available better tools, the assimilation of which (specific technical learning ability), is another talent. Talent combined with education and application results in what is viewed as a desirable result and then the person gets to be labeled as 'talented' by the public. May 17 13 06:48 pm Link Gulag wrote: You know their names, how can you say they didn't succeed? May 17 13 07:21 pm Link I agree to a point and disagree somewhat also. Art isn't something that you can completely render down into equations that can be memorized. Even if that were possible, memorizing isn't understanding. Knowing what to do and when to do it is good. Knowing WHY, though, allows more freedom of expression, more creativity. Different areas of the brain have been shown to be responsible for different aspects of thinking. Those areas also develop differently in different people. This is what allows for levels of talent between people. Math is another example. Some people, no matter how hard they try, can't grasp mathematical concepts. For others, like me, it comes naturally. I never studied for a math test in my life and had nothing lower than a 3.6 up through Calculus. I didn't have to memorize equations. I understood the concepts well enough that I could "reinvent" what I needed to solve the problems. I get the equation part of art. I don't get the concepts, though. I know the rules of color theory, tones, perception, lines, angles, composition, etc. I can even regurgitate some of the reasons people give for the "rules" associated with those aspects. I don't fully comprehend the whys of all of them, though. I see images that bend or even break those rules and to me, they are phenomenal pieces of work. I see others that follow the rules and think "Eh....it would look better if they did break a rule or two." Comprehending the rules...and I mean a raw, internal comprehension...allows one to know when to break those rules and why it's OK to do so. All that being said, a person can improve their work through practice, study, devotion, and experimentation. For me, experimentation is my only means for rule breaking. Trial and error. I try. I evaluate. I react to the evaluation. I learn things that work and things that don't. I carry that experience forward. I build on what I learn. And now.....my samples from long ago and more recent.... OLD  NEW  May 17 13 07:49 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: What I typed was "failed artists in their own time." May 17 13 07:56 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: I have a challenge for you Natalia. Can you give a definition of 'talent' and, at the same time maintain that it doesn't exist. May 17 13 11:33 pm Link Talent is highly overrated. If you really look underneath the surface you will find what "talent" is, but you really have to look. Just food for though, The Talent Code, by Daniel Coyle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7QNxXbziA ...plenty of material on that topic from people who were curious to look what is the hype really about. "Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect." Vince Lombardi There are so many circumstances that effect you since you are a child and too many choices that effect your results, choices that any of us are free to make. If you were to study any "talented" person thorough enough you would find explanations for every choice they make and how every circumstances ultimately led them to where they are now. And it would stop being magical or "talented". It's like when a magician explains the trick, your perception changes and you are not impressed anymore. By why bother. It's so much easier to simply call it "talented" isn't it. Magic is so much more fun and it's such an easy way out. But it can be dangerous as well. It alienates people, creates wrong expectations, fills egos and it's always a good excuse. So by all means, use it - just makes sure you know why you use it. "If you knew how much work went into it, you would not call it genius." - Michelangelo, on the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, as quoted in Speeches & Presentations Unzipped (2007) by Lori Rozakis, p. 71. May 17 13 11:41 pm Link Krunoslav-Stifter wrote: Highly overrated? Just google Carl Friedrich Gauss and Blaise Pascal instead. And talent can be cultivated for almost everyone? here is this guy's observations: May 17 13 11:56 pm Link Gulag wrote: I rest my case. May 18 13 12:08 am Link Ruben Vasquez wrote: +1 May 18 13 12:14 am Link Krunoslav-Stifter wrote: +1 May 18 13 12:14 am Link This may called a journey to find my genre 2009  2010  2013  very confusing May 18 13 12:43 am Link |
