Ed, I think you just explained why some are naturals and why some aren't.

Yes, there are people who pick up a pen and pencil and what comes out is flat-out amazing, without any formal education. The powers of observation are enough.

I happen to not be one of these people. I have almost no talent as far as the hand and the pen are concerned, just in case you're about to accuse me of being a mediocre artist. ^_^

I think everyone has something in them which can be regarded as a "talent." In saying that all artists are learned artists, I think you're doing art a major injustice.

Some people are naturally better at it than others. No one is saying an "unnatural" artist can never become a great artist! With hard work, passion, and diligence to ANY TASK, a person can excel.

But there are indeed people out there who can pick up the tools and know what to do with them off the bat. Much like some people who acclimated to music or what have you.

That's the foundation for good talent.

If someone can pick up a pen and paper (or whatever medium you want to chose) and can perform without an education on an impressive level, you have talent.

Do you deny the existence of talent in individuals?

I agree with you for the most part.

Replicating images is one thing, but some people (myself included) are just no good at it. If you asked me to draw a man holding a rose, I would be able to do it, but not in a way that would be considered "good" - in other words, it would show no real artistic ability. Some people are better at this than others (like anything) - and this can contribute to good artistry.

Hand-eye coordination with the pen in an attempt to depict an interpretation of reality is probably something that would be helpful in having as an artist - but not required, as you said.

There are variables, naturally, which contribute to good artists. How they see, how they interpret, how they use their tools. A whole host of shit. Like a nice chili. It's not chili without some basic ingredients to differentiate it from, say, a HAMBURGER, but you can throw shit in there to make it accommodate what you're trying to accomplish. I hope that metaphor works. I didn't think about it too hard. =/

But some people? They're just damned good at it. They have a bunch of these tools in their head already (hand-eye coordination, unique interpretation skills of what they see, whatever) and this makes a LOVELY mesh of awesome art. Don't you think?

O, they definitely are a minority - no argument there at all.

But they certainly exist.

But you're right - most of the artists I come across are learned artists, in one shape or another.

Leaving a deep impression on someone with a drawing that can seem bad to someone else leaves your discussion to be subjective. I do not want to waste my time arguing about fighting game art being amazing for someone (JUST IN CASE!) on these non-gaming gaming forums.

Drawing what you observe alone isn't what consists being an artist. If I can draw an insect I see on paper with pencil as it is, you're missing other important things. You're not applying composition or thinking about it if you're just drawing what you see without thinking of the best way to express that sight. You're not pushing and pulling/exaggerating certain features and values in order to maximize the impact if you're just "doing something beautiful from observation." In a way, that's just mapping out something. That's a mimic.

Do you have any examples of someone's drawing that came without anyone's advice and/or teaching (there is no necessity for it to be formal) and is flat-out amazing on professional standards? For someone to say he/she has had no influence whatsoever is BS.

I'm saying it again, no one picks up a pencil for the first time and draws something amazing. I don't emphasize formal education. Observing in itself consists of a lot and can be education. Just looking at something and replicating it or studying someone else's sketches and understanding them, etc., can mean a lot and not just one word in itself: observation.

And no, saying everyone is a learned artist isn't injustice to anyone. As a matter of fact, it's your twist on my subject. How can you be so good by not learning anything from someone else either directly or indirectly. It's surprising that things have to be explained to the most infinite detail here, not so that someone can understand but so that there isn't a retort that indicates points flying over a head.

Here's a fourth "natural genius" example. Have you read Van Gogh's Draughtsman book? He had mediocre paintings, sketches and studies when he first started to draw and take art seriously. Look at his stuff years later, the stuff we usually see!

Ask Sarah Simblet the same question. It's getting old. Just show those amazing examples. I've yet to find someone who draws with negative 100% influence from anyone else whether it be drawing or observation and has been recognized as something amazing world-wide. Not even Leonardo or Michaelangelo.

What you saw in some people centuries ago and see even more now due to easier methods of communication is "potential." It's just different in definition from "natural" and it's different from what you've said. One thing to clarify with potential is that when he/she first sets down that brush on paper and leaves an impression then this person is not afraid to express him/herself, there is subtlety and feeling, but not tension. So people will say to this person, "You have potential" when in reality they're just one step ahead. I mean, seriously, if you take 30 3 year olds to paint one house, how do you say who's better since at this stage there isn't much influence? So in reality the hardship involves become a grown-up child, not a grown-up adult. I'll just leave it there whether I've convinced one person or none.

The fact of the matter is that when you apply to art school your portfolio is required to largely consist of observational work. You can't disregard the ability to observe and reproduce with various media, because it is clearly accepted that this the foundation of any sort of professional art. This is true of anything. You can't teach someone to be a genius. All you can do is hone the aptitude that already exists and impart knowledge.

The definition of a "natural" at anything is not that he is at a professional level with little to no practice or education. Natural ability and education are not mutually exclusive. Being great involves both. But hard work can never make up for a lack of natural talent.

Artistic skill is natural. Although I wouldn't say those who doesn't have "it" from the utmost beginning wouldn't necessarily have any talent, some people just need some practice before it becomes really apparent. And then there are those who just can't do it no matter how hard they try. Sad, but true.

Totally natural, but hone-able by practice and study. I've rarely seen someone who can draw well without a parent or grandparent who has an almost equal level of talent. So i'd guess it's also an inherited trait.