art - natural or learned?

Absolutely, without question, artistic talent is natural. It cannot be manufactured; a person either possesses a strong sense of composition and design, or he doesn't. The difference between mediocre artistry and inspired artistry is always self evident; it's the innate ability to see what isn't there and to innovate upon that vision. Nothing can teach that; art schools exist only to instruct in techniques to further enable the ability to manifest itself repeatedly. Whether a person's craft is illustration, sculpture, flower arrangement, needlecraft, music, cooking or interior design, it's that same instinctual sense of expression that provides the inspiration. That's all artistry is: self-expression, and it's the basic urge of any good artist to represent himself/herself through the ability to create.

I've seen this seperation between true artistry and poseur. I've been through umpteen art classes and in each one, there is always a clear divide between those who function only so far as an external hand guides them and those who trust their senses to serve as their compass. In every single project, the students who dare to do their own thing earn the highest praises. Those who mimic the project examples or follow the instructor's suggestions to the letter produce lackluster work; their lack of inspiration shows.

Theoretically, anyone could spend a couple years studying and drawing, say, Ford Mustangs. In time, that person would learn to draw Mustangs very well, they would be an authority on Mustang sketching. But if you asked that person to use their knowledge of Mustang design to create a new vehicle, one not of the Mustang line, could they do it? Could they identify the individual parts, make alterations and reassemble them in a new and exciting way or would they become stumped, unable to see anything but Mustangs?

That's the difference between an artist and a person who merely learned a skill over time.

Jam it back in, in the dark.