[Rob M]

The correct term is "geek," my friend.
That's the label we have chosen.

Lunatique-
I'm not so sure I'd place Michael Jordan in a list of geniuses. He's got an assload of athletic ability, that much is undeniable.
However, being able to slam dunk doesn't require a 160 IQ.

[spooge demon]

To me the talent, imagination, vision etc that was required to conceive and make real proggrams like photoshop and maya far exceed that of anything that these programs have produced. Learning how computers work makes you aware of the beauty of the minds that created these things. That was my reaction, anyway.

I suppose there is such a thing as talent, but it tends to be really overated, IMHO.

Maybe nerds are just those whose interests fall clearly outside the social? Their focus could artistic or technical, and there is a lota overlap between those.

[Frog]

I think the "us vs them" mentality is unhelpful, cooperation is an essential part of any large project and painful as it can be we all have to make changes to our work once other people have their input. Personally I would rather those came from a programmer for practical reasons than some marketing bod or even worse a manager who knows nothing about art but likes to exercise power (and the changes they make are often for the worse).

As for talent, I'm sure it exists in all of us. I spent over 4 years obsessively learning to play the guitar and I got nowhere despite working my arse off at it. I never develloped a sense of rythm or a fine ear, these are things I'm convinced I can never learn. On the flipside I find visual things come to me more naturally, drawing and photography are things that are far from effortless but at least I can see improvements after I put some work in.

[Torstein Nordstrand]

My wife can't sing. She told me this years ago. That's why, no matter what situation, she wouldn't sing. In church as a kid, she would mime. I've pushed her several times on this, and when she tries, although it sounds bad, we make improvements. Can she sing?

Two weeks ago I had to rescue my kid sister, 'cause she was late with an english assigment. She's dropping out of school. "I don't know what it means, I don't know how to write this. It's just something I can't do well." After one hour's work, she was writing much faster, surprising me with remembering what I had pointed out, trying out things before she told herself she couldn't do it - and succeeding. Can she write english?

Kid geniuses... ask yourself why and when that six-year-old got a violin in the first place. Do you think he picked it up from the streets, and then showed this amazing 'talent'? It's a truth that we learn much faster when we are young, and if you start when your kid is 2, or subject your kid from birth to rythm and classical music, the kid WILL gain a deeper understanding. Is this talent?

Munch and Picasso. Darwin, Freud. Geniuses of our world. All of them were products of their time, being part of a common reaction to an artistic or scientifical development. Timing, training and sometimes dedication made these persons special. WE made them special by remembering their names and works.

I have had an astounding amount of artistic idols as I grew up. Every single one of them were really industrious people, drawing and painting almost every day, even as a child. Neil Gaiman, now famous author, went to the library every day as a kid, reading all they got there. I did not do this, and I now strive to catch up.

No, you can't catch up to a Mozart or Beethoven, it's probably too late for you. You didn't get a piano when you were two years old, and you haven't had the teachers / positive feedback, reinforcement / stubbornness to keep on developing / intimidating parental discipline / cultural drive. But you can still be pretty awesome, if you try even harder than you think you can.

[razzak]

everyone has talent to everything, its just that most people either dont work on it or their "talent" doesnt really aplly to other ppl.
if someone convinces themselves they have talent, they will. if i sit there and keep saying i dont have talent, i wont have talent. its all about convincing yourself

[Lunatique]

Torstein-- I agree with you in some ways. The people that had made history in their respective fields have definitely put in a ridiculous amount of dedication, time, and hard work to get there.

But, I still think about the countless others who had started just as early on in their lives, received just as much positive/negative feedback, worked just as hard, and strove just as much but never even coming close to the brilliance of the supernovas they aspired to become.

If we raised two kids in the exact enviroment, gave them the same training, and treated them exactly the same(we could even seperate them so that they don't know each other at all), there will still be one that is better than the other at what they're training for. These two kids could even be identical twins, so that they are about as similar as two people can get.

So, how would you explain it if one ends up being better? Could it be that one has more talent?

I have to agree with the others about computers and programming. If the technical people behind these wonderful technologies had no imagination, we wouldn't have what we have today.

[Steven Stahlberg]

Kaete, prodigies are'nt freaks of nature.
They're simply predictable statistical peaks of the Gaussian distribution curve, the tips of the iceberg of humanity so to speak. It's not black versus white, it's a continuous grayscale.

Talent is something other than learned skills. Pre-disposition - an original wiring in the brain, the DNA we're dealt - we're born with it, a physical attribute that makes it easier for that person to do something, even before practising it.
Put 1000 kids that haven't received much in the way of art education in front of pen and paper, grade their efforts, and you will see a Gaussian distribution from good to bad similar to when you measure IQ.

(How to define good and bad in this case? Well if it looks like it's drawn by your average 10 year old, and it's actually drawn by a 5 year old, that would be a good place to start.)

I wish my kids were following in my footsteps - but nope. Drawing and painting bores them, the youngest can take a few minutes but the older - no thanks. They are right on the middle of the curve when it comes to that activity, as far as I can estimate.

Now I realise they can change their minds at any time, apply themselves like crazy and become good - perhaps even great - artists as they grow up, I've heard of cases like that. That would be great, I'm all for that, I'll definitely be here for them if that ever happens. (And don't think I'm hindering their development by negative thinking - if you think they can be influenced that easily you haven't met them.)
edit: not that there's ANY negative thinking allowed in my household...

But I still think a pre-disposition for drawing would help a lot if they ever did decide to go into some art-related industry.

Still, having said all that, what I think is most important in an artist's toolbox is
1. motivation = stubborness, not-giving-up, working hard...
and
2. creativity = inventiveness, ability to think of interesting things never seen before.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Stahlberg ]

[Guy-Incognito]

People, people, we're loosing the point of the arguement. After returning from isolation in outer-Mongolia, I have realized that there is more to life than mega bites and processors.

What is the difference between a nerd and a geek anyway?

[Liser Studios]

Lunatique> i think you're right to some degree. But the thing is, Michaelangelo (or whoever) didn't just wake up one morning and say "i'm gonna paint something" and woah, what do you know, there's the creation of Adam!
he worked his butt off. he spent every day, all the time, working on his art. I gaurentee you he drew/painted at least 8 hours a day. As he said "If you knew how hard I worked for my mastery you wouldn't think it was so wondeful at all" or another quote from him "A man paints with his brains and not with his hands."

Da Vinci was great at anatomy. Wonderful. He wasn't just born with this ability. He actually went and disected bodies and studied them up close and personal. Who's willing to do that, or who can legally do that? No one. Which is why no one understands anatomy as well as him.
"It is necessary thing for the painter... to know the anatomy of the sinews, bones, muscles and tendons in order to know, in various movements and impulses, which sinew or muscle is the cause of each movement, and to make only those prominent and thickened, and not the others all over the limb, as many who, make their nudes wooden and without grace, so it seems as if you were looking at a bundle of radishes rather than the muscles of nudes."
"I say it is far better to draw in company than alone for many reasons: the first is that you will be ashamed to be seen among the draftsmen if you are unskillful and this shame will cause you to study well..."
obviously he thought studying was very important... just look through his notes. it's very... intellectual (?)... he thinks everything through, he's not just "painting because he has talent" know what i mean?

There is no such thing as talent. What they call talent is nothing but the capacity for doing continuous work in the right way. - Winslow Homer
"As practice makes perfect, I cannot but make progress; each drawing one makes, each study one paints, is a step forward." van gosh

all these artists studied all the time, from when they were very young. unfortunately these days people couldn't even study art in depth until after they're out of high school. So, people don't even get to start studying until they're older. Which sucks.
But then again, you look at those master's paintings and you're amazed. but you don't realize that you've never seen their work from when they were 13-23... the earliest michealangelo painting i've seen is from when he was 24! If I studied ALL THE TIME from when i was 16-24, I don't mean to be cocky, but I'm pretty sure I could get close to his level. Not just me, but a lot of people here. Why don't people then? Well, society's structure for one thing. The other is that only 1 in a hundred million would have the will to study every day, 6 hours a day, no paid vacations, from the time they're 16-23.

just my 2 cents

edit> oh yeah... btw. i think athletes were brought up in here too. i think being a talented athlete and a talented artist are totally different. an athlete is limited to their physical abilities. wether you like it or not, if you're 5 foot 3 you're not gonna be an NBA Center or whatever. Art, on the other hand, isn't limited by physical abilities. Unless you don't have arms or something... but you know.
The same goes for music or singing. If you're lungs are too small, that's just too bad. If your hands are too small, sorry, you can't play the piano. Art is more mental than physical. So, of course, if you're just a plain retard who can't add 2+2 then you can't be an artist... but I'm just saying the average intelect can be an artist.

sorry if that sounded weird

just another 2 cents

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Liser Studios ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

quote

Quote:

i think being a talented athlete and a talented artist are totally different.

Artists and athletes are very much similar, the genes do matter - a lot. And it can be proven easily. Most artists will have an artistic parent or grandparent. Most people who are not artists, will not. There will be exceptions as always, but that's the rule, like it or not. The genes form the base, the foundation, from there it's up to the individual what they want to do with it. I'm absolutely certain there were hundreds and thousands of Michelangelo and DaVinci wannabees in the centuries since then, people that worked every bit as hard as they did, perhaps in some cases harder, and very very few of them even came close.

edit: this will probably brand me as an eilitist bastard, but I can't help my opinions, they're caused by being exposed to data that I believe is true... sorry...

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Stahlberg ]

[Liser Studios]

hmmm... yeah i guess so.
but oh well... my dad was an artist. my cousins and aunt are artists. my great grandma (dads side) was an artist. we have artist all throughout our family. i seem to be the only one with a lot of will though.
so... either way... there's lots of art in my family.

plus Walt Disney died exactly 17 years before my birthday! That means I'm destined to take his place... or something...
lol

[Lunatique]

Hmmm. But surely there are still differences in the level of excellence among the masters? Based on your theory, just because someone studied harder, they'll be better for sure, but we all know that's just not the case. Intelligence alone will determine that the smarter person can out think/analyze/imagine the others. So, you see, there's still a predisposed advantage no matter how hard people study.

I mean, haven't you ever know a kid who didn't study very hard in school, but gets high scores on tests, while some kids study a lot harder, but get lower scores?

Also, people's ability to analyze and interpret information in the visual context will not the same. Some people will read and learn a lot about lighting, color, value, compositon..etc, but when it comes down to taking these digested information and coming up with an original piece of work, they might have trouble applying their knowledge in an aesthetic and effective way. Yet, there are people that can just "see" things in their minds, and can apply that vision more effectively. When they learn new things about art theories, they can immediately digest and then incorporate.

It doesnt' matter if a talent is mental or physical--there will always be different degrees of it. I absolutely do not believe that if you take any average kid who had never shown any artistic leanings, then gave him/her the same training as the old masters received, that he/she will be guaranteed to be a great artist of worthy of the title of a master. Even if this kid WANTED to be great, and is passionate about it, it won't be guaranteed to happen.

I know that there are very talented and successful artists out there who also believes that there is no such thing as talent, and you only have to work very hard. I disagree with them, because when someone has attained that level of understanding and gone through the hardwork, they forget that they had predisposed advantage in the first place. They've never known what it feels like to be untalented. How can they say that anyone could attain what they did if they've never been in the shoes of an untalented person?

If some dim-witted klutz with the dream of becoming a master painter went ahead and spent his entire life to chase after that dream, what do you think will happen? This person might end up a decent, or even a pretty good artist, but becoming a true master? I seriously doubt it.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[DeathJester]

Main Entry: nerd
Pronunciation: 'n&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps from nerd, a creature in the children's book If I Ran the Zoo (1950) by Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)
Date: 1951
: an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially : one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits <computer nerds>

Main Entry: geek
Pronunciation: 'gEk
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from English dialect geek, geck fool, from Low German geck, from Middle Low German
Date: 1914
1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disapproved of


Merriam Webster Dictionary.

[Guy-Incognito]

I hoped that this topic would not upset people. Obviously it has.

The only reason I raised the debate was because I receive average grades on my course for creative work where as the computer boffins are up there in the 90's. My tutor does not encourage creativity nor does he give a toss about my ability to draw. In an art college, on a multimedia design and digital animation course I would expect a little more respect.

So that is the angle I wanted to take when asking the question. Talent is a completely different matter.

my web site

[xino]

don't worry Guy

I had the same kind of problems when I went to the art institute in dallas

for me though it was everyone who sucked up to the teachers got the better grades when half of them weren't better than I was...that's what pissed me off

basically if you hung out and BSed with them for an hour or more out of classes you got better grades...-shrugs

but I'm not bitter about it now...at the time I was....right now I'm pretty darn happy about where I am with my artwork

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: xino ]

[damppuppy]

I'll tell you one thing. Find .one thing that you want to do really well, then stick with it. And appreciate the fact that you can do that one thing really well.

There is no excuse to resign yourself to a specific role, be it an artist, a computer nerd, or a creative madman. I'm not one who belives in "talent". The only thing that separates good artists, computer-savy nerds, and visionaries, is which skill they are willing to spend their time, devotion, and commitment on. I find it ridiculous that people belittle their ablities by saying they were capable of nothing else. People do not and should not become victims of their talent. They should master and empower themselves with what ever talent they choose.

Just remember that true talent comes at a price. And that price is time. You want to be more computer savy, sit down and experiment with computer. You want to be more artistic, sit down and draw. Just don't try giving 200% of yourself trying to do both, and then expecting that you'll be great at both.

Personally, I wonder what kinda of great artist I could have been if I weren't a Computer Science major at UCSD. See, I have a hard time committing myself to any one skill. I spread myself too thin at the expense of ... I guess ... my social life... and sleep. I've spent all my life up to high school drawing, and I've spent the last four year programming. Now I wonder if I should have went to art school. Because now I'm an above average artist with 15 years experience, and a decent programmer with 4 years experience, but at the same time I want to be as good as the elite artist I see on these forums. But I barely have time to hone my art skills, when I got to make a GOD DAMN Oberon compiler. The only CS classes I've come to appreciate is my openGL advanced Graphics Programming course, because it relates to paradigms in art, and it's creative. So heres my lesson to you, Guy, don't expect to be great at two things at once. You'll just end up a disgruntled schizoprenic.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: damppuppy ]

[travis travis]

yipes this thread is pretty big to join in now, but what the hell...

let's see... ok, artists vs. techies. Well first of all artistic techniques and computer techniques can be learned. But having a natural creative impulse for working with solving logical problems or being artisically free and inventive are two different things, and they can't be learned. A lot of people fall squarely into one side of latent ability. A techie will learn to draw by technique, and their images will be excellent in that respect, but not inventive, interpretive, abstract, or meaningful. In this sense... techies can sometimes make way better commercial artists then born artists, because they are willing to simply function with technique and systems and draw highly accurate representations. But without being innovative, or new, or putting inspiration in art ever... we'd have a boring world. If art was only always direct representation, using our standard techniques it wouldn't be a very interesting subject to most of us. The born artist, unfortunately, has it very tough in this world because inspiration is not something you can sell in itself. The techie should bless their stars that their inate gift provides so much security and profitability in this day and age. True, the artist may sometimes end up rich and famous, but you can't imagine the troubled road. If they can buckle down and handle using technique, they may do well, but that often isn't satisfying to them, they have to be in a position to satisfy their gift, which is very tough to get in our society

when the artist and techie are willing to work together though, and both completely respectful of the other's role and process, then the results can be some of the best we've seen. It's hard to find a pure techie though, who will respect the other's total artistic control, as hard as it is to find a pure artist who is good enough to deserve that control

to give you an example, Shiguru Miyamoto is a pure artist and John Carmack is a pure techie. Both are creative geniuses, and both are so successful because they use their own natural gifts completely. think of how venerated these two are just for living up to themselves. they are a true rarity because so few people are willing to take that sort of plunge, it's mystic almost, you have to be willing to put things aside and not be afraid to put your work first

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: travis travis ]

[Guy-Incognito]

I'm glad you did add your opinion. Some good points raised. I suppose that wraps things up. Thank you all, very much.

techno-art.co.uk