You mention the concept of talent in this article. I am curious. Why do you believe such a thing as "talent" exists? if you do.
Here is my loose thoughts for the disbelief of talent: Individuals have innate inclinations towards certain modalities of expression, but this does not imply the existence of a metaphysical concept such as talent. Talent is, at best, a layman's excuse for the refusal of doing conscious labor in whatever art or science they are uninclined in.
I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts on this.
“Individuals have innate inclinations towards certain modalities of expression” - yes, they do. This often is coupled with passion which produces the drive towards labour.
I believe in talent. I think when looking at music it is hard to deny its existence. I think its existence is metaphysical. I find the disbelief in talent is the “cope” of the consciously “untalented”.
Nonetheless - the “untalented” is a more slippery term, in my opinion. Everyone I know who possesses talent in a certain sphere are not resting on it to achieve success. Quite the opposite. The ones with the talent seem to have the greater inclination towards hard work.
In regards to the graphomania, the people I posit as being afflicted are as far as I could see, without talent. In fact, the talent they had was the talent for social interaction and “climbing” which was the cause of their early “success”. They had a talent for people and a drive towards that, yet for some egotistical reason they believed they were “artists”. They were not, I think they wanted to be seen as Very Special.
I know many talented artists and illustrators, some of whom have had major success and others who won’t even share their work online. They are all intense hard-workers, passionate and critical of all art and themselves, and are in a constant process of self-improvement (for their art). Their talent seems to be a part of a skill for illustration which was “quickly” picked up at an early age, because they had a natural inclination for it. This inclination is the sparkly, slippery germ that we call talent.
Yet none of them were as developed and amazing at 16 as they are now. Because everything, even with talent, needs labour. The more labour, the more you work the muscle of talent.
Graphomaniacs over-rely on talent as a concept, believe they have it, demand attention for it, and do not engage in meaningful labour. Nor can they take critique (at least not too much).
I really like your question, and it is food for thought. I think there may be a whole series on graphomania brewing …
You mention the concept of talent in this article. I am curious. Why do you believe such a thing as "talent" exists? if you do.
Here is my loose thoughts for the disbelief of talent: Individuals have innate inclinations towards certain modalities of expression, but this does not imply the existence of a metaphysical concept such as talent. Talent is, at best, a layman's excuse for the refusal of doing conscious labor in whatever art or science they are uninclined in.
I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts on this.
“Individuals have innate inclinations towards certain modalities of expression” - yes, they do. This often is coupled with passion which produces the drive towards labour.
I believe in talent. I think when looking at music it is hard to deny its existence. I think its existence is metaphysical. I find the disbelief in talent is the “cope” of the consciously “untalented”.
Nonetheless - the “untalented” is a more slippery term, in my opinion. Everyone I know who possesses talent in a certain sphere are not resting on it to achieve success. Quite the opposite. The ones with the talent seem to have the greater inclination towards hard work.
In regards to the graphomania, the people I posit as being afflicted are as far as I could see, without talent. In fact, the talent they had was the talent for social interaction and “climbing” which was the cause of their early “success”. They had a talent for people and a drive towards that, yet for some egotistical reason they believed they were “artists”. They were not, I think they wanted to be seen as Very Special.
I know many talented artists and illustrators, some of whom have had major success and others who won’t even share their work online. They are all intense hard-workers, passionate and critical of all art and themselves, and are in a constant process of self-improvement (for their art). Their talent seems to be a part of a skill for illustration which was “quickly” picked up at an early age, because they had a natural inclination for it. This inclination is the sparkly, slippery germ that we call talent.
Yet none of them were as developed and amazing at 16 as they are now. Because everything, even with talent, needs labour. The more labour, the more you work the muscle of talent.
Graphomaniacs over-rely on talent as a concept, believe they have it, demand attention for it, and do not engage in meaningful labour. Nor can they take critique (at least not too much).
I really like your question, and it is food for thought. I think there may be a whole series on graphomania brewing …