[mjmcchesney]

I agree. We don't have guild systems (actual guilds, not just groups that call themselves guilds) any longer, and thus not everyone is taught how to grind pigments, the best way to fasten certain media using different types of oils and binders, etc. And I haven't seen anyone make a brush (actual brush out of hoghair, sable, etc., with their hands) in quite a while. People just don't have the same foundation as we once had. But the volume of art created, and the diversity of such, is far greater than that of the Renaissance. Although we may have forsaken the guild system and extremely strong foundations, we do have a larger diversity in thought. Oftentimes that is far more important than education, as the idea at least exists. The execution is the only part that needs to be worked on.

Blah, whatever. =] I personally like a lot of stuff being created today. Even moreso than Da Vinci's stuff (*as he looks on the Da Vinci book sitting on his desk*) Wait, that's not there. =]

-Marc

[Jucas]

There are masters, all around you. The trick is finding them. Why do we recognize; DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael; as masters? Is it because they were inovative? Is it because they were amazingly skilled? What is it that makes these people masters?

The world, especially now, is filled with so many oportunities and outlets for freedom of expression. Our masters, the masters of our generation, are masked. Not hidden, if you open your eyes. Is Steven Spielburg a master artist? What about Miyazaki? Or Craig Mullins for that matter? See. They are there!

If we look at "masters", you will find that most of these people are ancient white men from europe. Is a master swordsmith from japan, any less of a master than DaVinci? In my opinion, no. This of course leads us to deeper questions; what is art? how do you define art? what is the meaning of life? etc. etc.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jucas ]

[jome]

Very good point, Jucas. I concur!
The art factory that is the atelier like Rubens's was doesn't exist anymore, and I often wonder what it would be like to be part of such an enterprise.

[mza]

There are too many distractions in the world today: TV,videogames,internet,movies,friends,family,music,work, etc.. etc..

If I was in the middle of nowhere with nothing better to do than draw & paint every day then maybe I'd have a shot at being a master too.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: mza ]

[Immy]

Hi, here are my views:

Da Vinci became really famous and stood out simply because he was way ahead of his time. Remember he was not just a great artist - he was an inventor, engineer and sculptor. He was the first of his kind and he was a true 'genius'. A guy like him does not come around very often but I am certain there are guys/girls out there with his sort of potential. But like you said the education now is not like it was during the Renaissance. But also art and science have evolved so much since his time, which means it is practically impossible to be great at all of them like Da Vinci was. Today there are great painters and great scientists, but not both.
As for Michelangelo he was also amazingly gifted but sculptures don't seem to be 'fashionable' today and his painting style is not longer wanted by modern art. In fact you could blame it all on modern art if you wanted to. If traditional style painting was still the norm, I have no doubt that there would be plenty of Michelangelo�s and Sargents around, but not necessarily Da Vinci's

[mza]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jucas:
There are masters, all around you. The trick is finding them. Why do we recognize; DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael; as masters? Is it because they were inovative? Is it because they were amazingly skilled? What is it that makes these people masters?

Is Steven Spielburg a master artist? What about Miyazaki? Or Craig Mullins for that matter? See. They are there!


[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jucas ]

---

I agree, the artists you mentioned above,are great artists... true professionals in their field... but masters?

It's a great jump from student to professional and even greater leaps from professional to a "master"

my 2 cents anyway, I'm just a girl so what do I know...I've never heard of any female masters.

[mjmcchesney]

I would consider Frida Kahlo to be a master, mza. Not an Old Master, but a master nonetheless.

[edible snowman]

I think there are certain small advantages in youth, genetic or otherwise, that build over time. say for example, one person might be slightly better at art as a little kid, either because of a gene or because they just enjoy it so they draw for that extra 15 minutes a day. If you take this small advantage as a child and multiply it over the years, it can look like a big advantage when you discuss things like talent. It's my personal opinion that for nearly everything these advantages can be overcome by hard work. Like someone said though, there are a lot of distractions, making people less inclined to do it.

[Jucas]

MZA- I touched on that subject, well the subject of masters being relative. Also, like I said. What makes a master? It's all relative, just cause we say "Mizaki is the best and very skilled", but we can't call him a master? Why?

Anyhow,

[daz199]

i'd consider Craig Mullins to be the master of this era...

[el scoono]

I suppose it all depends on how you define "master". You seem to think of masters in the sense of traditional painting and sculpture. However, these forms of art just aren't prevalent in the fine art world today. Was Picasso a master? Henry Moore? I think they were, and both lived in modern times.

[Steven Stahlberg]

edible snowman, very good point.

About the main topic: yes I agree, there are 'masters' all over the place (defining masters as people who could have reached the fame of Titian, for example, had they lived back then).
They are simply disappearing in the crowd.

Look through the book about the making of Mulan, just to pick a single example out of many, off the top of my head. Some *incredible* artwork there, by people I never even heard of before. I'm sure there are just as many more, maybe hundreds, thousands, of 'master-class' talents out there that I'll never hear about. Just look through each and every Bud Plant catalogue (which only shows a narrow sample of artists active today, in the anglosaxon world).

[James Bradford]

the 'masters' practiced, observed, and studied more than anyone else. screw genes.

[Steven Stahlberg]

quote

Quote:

screw genes.

I'm getting tired of this superstition being so stubbornly repeated here, and I bet everybody else is getting tired of my beating this horse. Well, just one more time:

My mom never practised, observed, studied.
She did these beautiful sketches of the local church, some kittens and stuff, when she was 15.
Then nothing for her entire married life.

Now at 65 she's suddenly taken up oil-painting, and doing much better than most people in this forum.
Her father was equally talented, while none of my other grandparents are. We can even trace it back to one of mom's great grandparents, before that it gets a bit fuzzy.
If that's not genes, then please explain to me what it is.

I'm not saying "screw study, it's all genes" - I'm saying genes do matter; you may not need them that much if you study enough, but they do help.

[Malachi Maloney]

Rockwell was a master.

[Sumaleth]

Talent is skill -learned-. What people forget is that kids can learn skills that suddenly appear prodiginous later in their lives -- but no one is born with the ability to paint well, it is entirely a learned skill from repetition.

However, it is clear that there are genetic differences that can "aide" the process. Some people learn quicker than others and this, more than anything, effects how "talented" they appear. Other benefits that may have a genetic basis include the drive to complete something started, and the drive to persist, both of which can nurture an early interest.

Having said that, the ability to learn well can also be learned through repetition, it doesn't only come from genetics.

I don't tend to put too much genetic weight to the argument that the offspring of creative parents will be creative themselves. I tend to think (no academic basis) that the children you get from any parents are equally likely to have genetic benefits -- it's pot luck.

However, being brought up in a creative environment most certainly has a social impact on the child. Environment creates the sparks of interest, environment and genetics push it along.

But anyone can learn to be talented at something.

Row.

[James Bradford]

Steven Stahlberg: I know they play a role, but the topic seemed to be that a master was born with all the abilities they had at their peak. Genes is glass, and the liquid you fill it with is practice.

[PixHortHiT]

Ok, I may suck at history but does anyone become a master in his/her time?? I find it unlikely...

[PixHortHiT]

And another thing I�d forgot to add: some of you here severely underestimates the role played by genes, really!!

[xino]

-agrees with Pix

masters are only defined as masters AFTER they long become dead

was Da Vinci loved back in his time by all?

nope...he was feared above everything else but the rich wanted him and commissioned him to do artwork for their legacies

Picasso almost no one cared about until he passed on...now he's considered "great"


almost all "masters" were unappreciated and even mocked in their times...as we all are for the most part...at least from my experience most "artists" got crap from the "jocks" in high school but that is a broad generalization I pull only from my experiences....


Masters do exist...masters may even be in this forum..but not a single one of them will be noticed until they die..which is a shame but all forms of artwork work like that...they are remembered and admired more during their passing than they ever were in their life...

becoming a master takes time..and only future generations can truly call someone a master since they have the wisdom and the ability to look over our "present" (their past) and see who stands out among us all....we can only hope we know that person right now and appreciate them before their time passes and regret not saying anything while they were here...

p.s. I do believe Spielberg is a master but just not yet...wait until he really gets going ...

"Life is trying to make as little mistakes as possible, dying is wishing you had more of them."

Appreciate the ones you think are great. And let them know. They may not be here tomorrow to listen to what you have to say.

[Liser Studios]

hey,
first off, i don't want to get everyone mad or start any flamewars. i just want to say my personal opinion, and something i thought of this morning.
i remember quite a few topics on here where we were arguing about wether there's such thing as talent or not. so, i thought about something...
there are no "masters" now, no Da Vinci's or Michaelangelo. No one is ranked as high as them.
people were saying that they just happened to have the right genes; only a certain amount of people have them.
so, i got to thinking... how many people do have these genes?
now, when i was thinking of the masters from then, the first names that popped into my head were Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, and Titian. I'm sure there were more (raphael comes to mind), but i just went with 3.
so
we didn't hit 1 billion people on earth until 1840. Da Vinci and them lived hundreds of years before then. So I'm guessing the worlds population was about 600 million. Maybe more like 300 million.

so, if you calculate the percentage of masters (3, although there were more) out of the 600 million you end up with a certain percentage. these are the people that "have the right genes"
now you use that percentage with the 6 billion (todays population) and the amount of masters that live today is:
30 (going by the 600 million)
60 (goig by the 300 million)
there should be 30-60 masters "with the right genes" of Da Vinci's worth on this planet right now... but there are none. Why?
Personally, I think it all has to do with education. No one is educated as well as the masters were, there's just no enough time in todays world. Therefore no one can get to their level.

So, what do you think? It's just a thought I had. Tear it apart if you want

[Lunatique]

JamesBradford- I think you just made the perfect analogy.

Glass is your talent, and the liquid is your hardwork. I love that.

So, will anyone disagree that people are born with different SIZES of glass? Very talented people have bigger glasses that could either be filled up with hardwork, or be empty if they are lazy.

Untalented people have smaller glasses, but fill it up with hardwork. BUT, once it's filled to the brim, they'll never be able to surpass the people with talent AND hardwork.

Makes sense.

I think Steven and I might be the only two people here who believes with absolute conviction that talent exists.

And yes, masters are all around us. It's just that the social climate we live in these days don't provide for the kind of atmosphere to go around naming people masters. What we DO, is the publish huge thick monographs on these people. And as steven mentioned, there are some ridiculously talented and accomplished artists working commercially that we don't know about, and since they work for a company as employees, we'll never see a monograph on them or know about them except when "The Art of (insert name)" books are published.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[edraket]

Ok..this is my viewpoint(s).

Talent is a genetic headstart. It exists in every quality people have.
I attempted to do sports at a high level. I trained my ass off for two years. Coached by a professional using a very modern and established method. Yet..one day this guy comes to the training group. He had never ridden a mountainbike before. He was on a bike that was too small. He ate hamburgers for dinner before the races. Yet within two weeks he was beating me. Thats when I realised what talent is. And that I did not have it...period.

In art there is many people with talent. Especially because art is so diverse nowadays. Some people have tremendous technical skills. Some people are very original. Some work better with a computer, some with a camera. And everything can be combined.

What makes a master in my eyes is that he sets a new standard. I don't see that happening right now.
But maybe masters can only be defined after they lived because than you can view them in the scope of history.

[Norling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lunatique:
Glass is your talent, and the liquid is your hardwork. I love that.

So, will anyone disagree that people are born with different SIZES of glass? Very talented people have bigger glasses that could either be filled up with hardwork, or be empty if they are lazy.

Untalented people have smaller glasses, but fill it up with hardwork. BUT, once it's filled to the brim, they'll never be able to surpass the people with talent AND hardwork.

Makes sense.

---

No, it does'nt make any sense at all. If we consider Darwins evolution-stuff as real, then we could say for sure that talent is small mutations. Artistic talent is not one mutation, its a great mix of different properties. Some ppl may be easy learners, that could make them good artists. Some ppl may have the ability to observe. Some ppl may have been born with artistic quialities that others have to learn. It's all about small variations in genes. And as Darwin stated...genes do pass on from generation to generation. Somebody coming from an artistic family will most likely be artistic too. If you want your kids to be artistic, then you better get an artistic wife...It's posible to breed super-artists just like we breed dogs with strange properties.

[Lunatique]

Norling- Yes, but the different properties still add up to ONE glass, and the sizes of the glasses vary?

I found an interesting article about talent and genius. It doesn't answer any questions, but it offers some interesting information.
Here's an excerpt:

"Mr. Kivy's book, for example, shows just how malleable ideas of genius have been. He demonstrates that genius, far from inspiring a monolithic interpretation, has taken on different shapes and meanings in different periods. There are, he argues, two dominant myths about genius in Western culture. The first, advocated by Plato, is that the genius is a passive recipient of divine revelation. The second, long attributed to Longinus, is that a genius is a creator rather than a receiver. Mr. Kivy writes: "For Longinus genius must seize the day; for Socrates the day must seize the genius." These are the two models of genius: the possessor (Longinus) and the possessed (Plato).

Mr. Kivy believes that Handel was seen through the model of Longinus as a creator of overpowering and sublime music, while Mozart was stamped with the Platonic mold, a man-child granted revelation. Beethoven combined both ideas, appearing as the iconoclastic creator and the inspired prophet.

But do these variations mean that genius has no existence in itself, that it is little more than what people say it is? No, Mr. Kivy says. Myths of genius vary; so do their interpretations. But he suggests that they are necessary for comprehending achievements that seem beyond comprehension.

In fact genius is always explained according to the mythologies of a given age. It is attributed to ethereal inspirations or to extraordinary concentration or to the collective unconscious or to a ruthless will or to genetic gifts. Now another explanatory myth has come along: that genius is an ideological construct that does not just embody notions of hierarchy and autonomy but was created to reinforce them. Genius is a manipulative illusion.

But the contemporary attack on genius is itself a mythology, an attempt to grasp the ungraspable by diminishing it, reducing it. So the tautly woven exclamations and provocations of Beethoven's "Eroica" Symphony are understood not by invoking notions of revelation or will but by alluding to the social ambitions of the bourgeoisie. The influence of Rembrandt's portraiture is explained not by invoking ideas of contemplative insight or masterly technique but by describing the painter's marketing prowess and factory-like production studio. Genius is "explained" the same way Longinus and Plato did � through metaphor and myth.

The problem with contemporary myths is that as they explain they also dismiss, attempting to strip away mystery and hierarchy by pretending they don't exist. But try listening to Bach's Goldberg Variations, Beethoven's Opus 111 Sonata, Mozart's "Nozze di Figaro" or Bartok's String Quartets. These are works that are each a product of its age, each subject to varying interpretations, each subject to varying tastes � just as is any other aspect of the world or human endeavor. But are their creators simply ordinary folk granted disproportionate attention by changing fashions? Just listen."

The entire article can be found here. You might have to register as a user of New York Times online, but it's free:

I'm doing some research into this topic. I'll post any answers I find.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[strata]

Luna, perhaps it works like the quote from Dogma modified a little: When you're young, the glass is small and easily filled, but when you get older the glass grows with you and if you don't practice more fluid is not added.

perhaps..

on the topic of masters being recognized only after their death... I'd say Frazetta is pretty popular? But as a generalization yah, I think it's to do with mans mortality... alive means he can create more, dead means there will be no more so cherish what we have for gods sake!

[Lunatique]

Here are some interesting articles and studies regarding talent, genius, and creativity:

http://talentdevelop.com/Page146.html

http://talentdevelop.com/Page64.html

http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/Brand/quotes/q17.html?nochoice=y

http://www.wsf.org/FAMILY/newsarchives/sweazy.htm

And one quote I read long ago, but really made an impact on me emotionally was this one:

"Doing easily what others find difficult is talent; doing what is impossible for talent is genius.
�Henri-Fr�deric Amiel"

[gArGOyLe^^]

I think Talent exists.. but its Talent AND Hardwork that makes some one really good..

Kids who are 4 years old and draw at 10 year old level are talented..

Maybe hard work can make you catch up to a talented person but can hard work make you creative? But Is creativity born in a person because of nature or nurture?

So I say talent does exist because if it didnt then like.. say I want to have a singing career and I wanted to sing like Mariah Carey with her crazy high notes (would be kinda wierd for me cuz i'm male) then I could have with hard work.. so to be the best of the best.. you need talent to give you the edge..

[gArGOyLe^]

oops.. that last post up there was by me.. I think I made 2 account ... sorry

[[666]Flat]

IMAGINATION IS TEH KEY TO EVERYTHING

anything else is just practice

oh and don't forget Donuts

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: [666]Flat ]