art - natural or learned?

For the artists here, would you art is natural or learned? Can a creative person with weak drawing skills become a good artist? I always been very creative but have trouble with pens and pencils, my drawings never look very good, but are creative. Can i fix this or is it something that cannot be fixed within natural talent?

How ya doing, buddy?

Some are born with talent, and hardwork allows that sense of talent to flourish. Talent without a concept of discipline really means very little and will only take a person so far.

Mostly, in my eyes, art is about finding inspiration and doing so requires a lot of hard work and discipline to take advantage when the moment of inspiration strikes. I'd say that discipline will almost always trump pure talent because there is no written law which states that talent is anything extraodinairy in and of itself.

So yea, I believe that every human being has an artistic instinct within themselves. Some just are a lot better with nurturing that part of themselves. It takes work to see results, but that's half the fun!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

is it ok though if at first you REALLY suck?

Most amazing jew boots

No one's perfect. Gotta start somewhere.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Natural.
Both of my parents were into art. My dad was into techinical art & cartooning but didnt pursue it to maturity.

My mom is a painter, loves portraits and displays her work at shows.

After years of experience with people I know that some have "it" and some dont.

Its not the use of any given media but rather the mindset to create and improve ones gift.

I did my new avatar like it?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

After years of experience with people I know that some have "it" and some dont.

In a lot of cases, I found out that "it" usually means the willingness to work their asses off.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think the acclimation towards ability in art is natural. Sure, you can work your ass off to become good at it, but I personally think talent is embedded in us all, in one form.

You can work to become good at art, music, and all that jive - but some people just have a natural disposition in these regards.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

You can work to become good at art, music, and all that jive - but some people just have a natural disposition in these regards.

Let me share with you a true-ism



What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It depends on what your vision of "artist" is. If you want to be a great artist, you're pretty well fucked unless you're born a genius. But, if you want to be that guy who scans his comics for his Live Journal and gets a C+ average at the local community college fine arts program, you could probably manage.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

A teacher of mine recently quoted Mozart in telling me this : "There are two kinds of students. Those who can write two measures of music and those who can't". What it means to me is that to be an artist, the only requirement is to be able to create something, small as it may be, without getting a cue from anyone. So someone who isn't able to write something without first being pushed to do it will have a hard time ever being more than an artisan of his craft. However, wether this ability comes naturally or not is debatable.

I've never really had any problem with this part of creating, but I have seen people who did. I'm pretty sure it's something you can get over if you work at it hard enough, so I imagine one can develop artistic ability given enough time to do so.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Or you could become a contemporary artist and throw paint on a canvas and give it a mystical sounding title. Given to the right crowd, you'll make plenty of money.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I think the acclimation towards ability in art is natural. Sure, you can work your ass off to become good at it, but I personally think talent is embedded in us all, in one form.

You can work to become good at art, music, and all that jive - but some people just have a natural disposition in these regards.

What she said, and I think everyone has been on this situation:

On some classes/training/etc with others... you are an average student while someone on the class is just naturally talented. It doesn't matter how hard you try... you will usually end upped by this other person doing little to no effort, and God forbids if this person actually works hard on it! (Personal experience)

People may become great with effort, but those who are born with it can become genius/extraordinary with hard work. So, work is necessary but natural talent matters... a lot.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Tafer

People may become great with effort, but those who are born with it can become genius/extraordinary with hard work. So, work is necessary but natural talent matters... a lot.

I personally think this is just an excuses for people without enough love.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by SCHNEE-5

I personally think this is just an excuses for people without enough love.

Love is overrated.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Time to wax idiotic.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

In every single project, the students who dare to do their own thing earn the highest praises.

While I want to agree, and while there is potentially a lot to that, I don't agree. There is something to be said about art which contains a certain 'appreciable' reference point which allows it to be appreciated according to the artwork which surrounds it. I don't necessarily mean from a mainstream standpoint either. Accessibility is very underrated.

One of the things I hate about modern performance art is the fact that it's many times supposed to be "appreciable" by virtue that it's different and not on account of its sense of artistry. I've brought this point up before, but a man covering himself in shit and rolling around on a mattress and selling it to the highest bidder is the very thing that is destroying art in the first place.

Inspiration isn't about doing something different. That, in itself, is a form of conformity that many modern artists are too quick to jump on.

But yea, how something is said is just as important as what it has to say. In that, I don't believe an artist who strives to do something different for the sake of being different really deserves praise above other works and other artists merely on that account.
Each work should be praised according to its own sense of structure and purpose. In the end, if a work isn't executed well, no matter how different it strives to be, then it is all for 'nothing'.

Why do I say this? As an artist, I believe art to be a viable means for communication, between people...between souls. If we are so stuck in our own asses in appreciating our own sense of originality that it puts us outside of the means for communication with others, what good is it?

No man is an Island, etc.

The bravery of the artist in exploring untrodden vision according to itself should be greatly appreciated but the final result doesn't always reflect perfection and deserve praise. All in all, art that follows traditional norms is still plenty impactual.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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

Artistry is an on-going process. There are not a lot of Davinci's these days. Genius is so rare that when it comes along it is delightful and unexpected. There is magic in that. There is also magic to be found in people who have dedicated their lives to their art and improving themselves. There is plenty of beautiful art which surrounds us, created by hands which were not touched by the stroke of genius, but persistence, hardwork and vision.

In essence, there is no difference between an artist who has the gift to begin with and one who learns to utilize his talents to there utmost perfection over time. The end result is what matters.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Art is natural. Studying it just makes you better and improves your art. And it's a never ending process of learning.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I remember getting into long discussions with friends and teachers about this very subject. It basically came down to this. If you want to see/make/learn something badly enough I believe you will become "talented" in the given area. But yeah, not everyone has that kind of drive to just wake up and start learning to draw.

And this thing about natural talent. I've seen many friends that have this apparent natural drawing ability. That's what it seems like at first. Though, when I seriously got to see how they draw and got to know them. I've come to realize they worked their asses off to get to that level.
Simply put they make it look easy because to them, it's fun. That drive to create art should be enjoyable.

Originally Posted by KimAykut

is it ok though if at first you REALLY suck?

Haha, I sucked at doing anything artistic for a good while. Until I began studying my own drawings (all the time), talked with artists, reading art related books and believe it or not, photos of anything and everything. From there I'm able to create anything I want. In a way all it took was me wanting to study art and never stopping that learning process (like Vemp said.)

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Artistic skill is definatly natural.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

well here is my thing. I am very creative. I'm very good at creating things. Anything really, I can create it, and it's pretty cool. I know my creativity is there. It's just that when I draw it doesn't come out good. Is that because of my lack of skill? can my skill combined with my creativity make me a good artist?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

"Good Artist" is relative, I suppose, depending on how far you wanted to take it. Although personally, I think being a "good artist" should NOT ultimately be the reason you do art.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Sup lizardcommando?

There is no such thing as an artist being a "natural talent." What you see is intuition and a lack of being shy and dishonest. It's not the same thing. The great masters that you and I know about didn't just pick up a pencil and express beauty on paper. Even they studied, and practiced their technique. They drew and painted every day; they studied previous masters by drawing copies. Look at Peter Paul Rubens. Look at how many studies he sketched to perfect his skill. Look at all the contemporary artists like Claire Wendling who clearly portray an Alphonse Mucha inspiration in their linework. You don't understand. Anyone CAN express themselves with honesty. A lot of people just choose to go "by the book" because they're initially timid. Who are you to judge or determine their permanent mark in the world of art at such a stage?

99% of the people who enter an art school and say they can draw are just lousy. It just takes time to learn. Some people will look better than others because they apply what they learn more quickly than others. Underline, all of the students in a class can quickly learn and remember simple and basic composition rules but some of those will just apply it more quickly. Some people will just apply and reapply the book rules until they have it in their heads and then be experimental.

Do you know who Jon Foster is? Right now he's a highly distinguished illustrator who's won golden awards in the Spectrum Magazine over other artists such as Peter de Seve. (I am not saying he's a better artist than Peter.) Know his background? He was rejected from an art school out of high school. (omg how is that possible if he's such a natural talent!?) He then reapplied to the same school but went to another one and was a "MEDIOCRE" student there, quit, then came back years later. And only AFTER that did he start to really understand what he was being taught and applied it. THEN his work started to become recognized.

Nathan Fowkes is another really (oh lets use the badly misunderstood term) talented artist. He said so himself that he went through endless "disastrous" paintings in college before he finally applied what he had learned about control with color and light. Look at his quick sketches now!

James Jean is a hard-working artist that has made his way into the Society of Illustrators. But there's the key, hard working. Lots of practice and observation. The most important thing is.... you gotta love it. It can't be a chore, it can't.

Please, PLEASE do not say that there is anyone who just comes in the door and is defined as "natural" because that term seems to be used around here to separate him/her from "phonies." No such thing, we all have emotions and creativity. Some are just late bloomers but in the end anyone can make it. Some people are just bottled up with all the wrong influences brought over by lousy anime, for example. It's just why now it may seem harder to find oneself. IF YOU CAN WRITE YOUR NAME, YOU CAN DRAW. Believe in yourself, don't be timid and work hard. You'll make it.

Uuuh, ok. I'll show 2 examples of my soft pastel plein air paintings. They were done with soft sennelier pastels, on 5x8" and vice-versa canson paper within 40 or so minutes. One from a month ago and the other from several days ago. The first is just lousy, the second shows you something. All I did was practice. And that doesn't just involve to continue painting. You GOTTA KNOW WHY YOUR LAST PIECE DIDN'T WORK before you hide it.

People who still think there's this rigid and existing divide between "natural" and "unnatural" artists are probably not producing any solid work themselves at the moment. Break from it. Every professional artist/instructor will say, "You've gotta practice. It's up to you." Guys from Pixar, Dreamworks, gallery artists, etc. who teach at my school will agree. Hey if you don't land a job there now just means they'll tell you, "Keep at it and work hard" even if you're a late bloomer.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

How do you determine this? I'd like to know. Because so called "naturals" are usually people who have good-eye coordination and can replicate what they see. That doesn't make them a good artist.

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?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

I deny the existence of over-praising work that lacks original composition, form, value and good line work. I was called a "natural" in school before taking art classes but I really wasn't. I could replicate images, which isn't artistic in my opinion. The true artists create original art not just observed art, or they manipulate what's in front of them to create something original. Having good eye-coordination does not an artist-make. People who can draw what's already been made, are possibly a natural at figure drawing or line work, but not a natural at art as a whole.

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.