art - natural or learned?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

It's very rare that someone will have all of their tools down (composition/figure drawing/value/contrast/line work etc) without schooling or imitating previous masters of art. And that's what I'm driving at. Most art is learned, these so called "naturals" are actually a minority.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?