Talent and Skill? Talent vs Skill?

[howard]

@MikeC

In short, he has talent to burn.

But he never made it for at least a few of the reasons you listed, @Gio.

Yeah. Another prime example, like I mentioned before, is Jaco. Whether fans or not I don’t think anyone would argue the fact that he was one of the most talented bass players of all time, but he just couldn’t function in society, even setting aside substances, and it was his downfall.

Success all adds up to a bigger picture than just talent. There’s also opportunity, soft skills, social factors, and a horde of other things including simple dumb luck.

So it’s probably best to divorce the discussion of the popular notion of talent/success from actual talent? The problem is, as Jörg pointed out, the way we are discussing talent isn’t exactly tangible or measurable.

[Wombat-metal]

@howard

the way we are discussing talent isn’t exactly tangible or measurable.

Talent isn’t tangible or measurable by it’s nature.

I have an ex who was a bit quirky and couldn’t balance a checkbook to save her life. But drop her in any country and she would speak the language in a couple weeks just from listening.

Korean did take 3 weeks.

How do you measure?

[Barney]

@Wombat-metal

How do you measure?

Fat Max 25’ the longer lengths are too bulky in my hand.

[howard]

@Barney

@Wombat-metal

How do you measure?

Fat Max 25’ the longer lengths are too bulky in my hand.

Stanley does make good tools.

[MikeC]

I’m not sure where/when the “talent = success” thing entered into this. My original point is that talent exists.

It’s not summarily write-offable as a mere set of skills, hard work, or a figment of an overactive imagination.

I have seen it up close and personal. I’ve interviewed top luthiers and musicians. To be sure, each was quirky, but each was also undeniably insanely masterful in what they did. They were artists, not just craftsmen.

The difference between them and others in their respective fields was one of vision and creation. They did not just trod over established ground; they created something new, something fresh.

To me, talent is being able to create as easily and subliminally as the rest of us breathe. It’s something someone doesn’t learn, it’s inborn. And where it comes from, I don’t have a clue. I’m just glad it does, for all our sakes.

[Barney]

On the bright side, in about 5 billion years our sun will die and it’s all over.

Buy that bass/amp/pedal while you can kids

[MikeC]

Way ahead of you, hoss. Basses are in hand.

[howard]

@MikeC

I’m not sure where/when the “talent = success” thing entered into this. My original point is that talent exists.

I was riffing off Gio’s point about the popular notion of talent.

[MikeC]

I got that. It’s just funny how, from post to post, this thread is like playing Telephone.

Or ADD tiddly-winks.

[Wombat-metal]

@howard

Stanley does make good tools.

Stanley from Bristol, CT. My birth state

[Wombat-metal]

@MikeC

I’m not sure where/when the “talent = success” thing entered into this. My original point is that talent exists.

Talent does not equal success, but talent does exist. Success exists. To be successful you need hard work and luck too. Everybody knows a talented band that never quite caught on.

[Wombat-metal]

On the other hand, you can have hard work and average talent and do well. Ian Hill is one of those, no one ever says what a fill or solo on Ian’s bass lines. But he has done well for himself chugging along.

Steve Cropper also admits he has no talent to play guitar. Which I take as modesty, but he is not a shredder by any stretch.

[delyn77]

@Wombat-metal

On the other hand, you can have hard work and average talent and do well. Ian Hill is one of those, no one ever says what a fill or solo on Ian’s bass lines. But he has done well for himself chugging along.

Steve Cropper also admits he has no talent to play guitar. Which I take as modesty, but he is not a shredder by any stretch.

Steve Cropper, yeah, I think he’s being modest. The guy’s a legend for a reason. He’s not out there shredding, but his style and feel are unmatched—he plays exactly what the song needs, and that’s something a lot of technically skilled players can’t even do

[mgoldst]

this is a very interesting conversation.

(before i jump in i want to just quickly give you context for my perspective (some of you already know this about me): i am a professional art & design educator, with a tenured associate professor position, and i have been teaching in the arts for about 18 years. i am also the holder of 3 college degrees in the arts: a BFA in graphic design, an MFA in graphic design, and an MFA in furniture design. i wrote a book about being a student in the arts. so when i say what i am about to say, its not a casual opinion — i have spent a lot of my adult life thinking about this sort of thing.)

there is this mythology around the arts by people who are not directly a part of them, that making something amazing goes like this:

1. get an idea
2. MAGICIAL ART SHIT
3. finished piece of amazing art.

when in reality it goes like this:

1. start (often without an idea)
2. a shitload of hard work, and struggles, and false starts, and stops, and distractions, and second guessing, and insight, and moments of clarity, and times of ‘flow’ and times of beating your head against a wall, and times of joy, and of defeat…
3. a thing you think may be finished and that nobody may ever care about, see, or acknowledge — but sometimes, people love it, and you love what you made.

i think the term “talent” is kind of a red herring. i think what we call “talent” is really a shorthand for a synthesis of:

— intelligence (be it intellectual, physical, emotional, linguistic, visual, anthropological, etc….)
— applied effort
— active curiosity
— a collection of skills, techniques, and pragmatic knowledge about a field or subject
— an understanding of context
— a means of production or manifestation

and, most importantly:

— the ability to combine the above together in interesting ways, and to see connections between things that are not generally understood to be connected.

now, i am not sure that all of that can be “taught”, but i am certain that all of that can be developed and explored — ultimately that is my job as an art & design teacher: to help students develop, to help them get past where they were yesterday, to help them learn to ask the questions, to make the connections, to develop a creative practice.

[Barney]

Or you could just tape a banana to the wall and wait for the huge retirement cheque.

Interesting points though Mitch.

[mgoldst]

respectfully and i say this with a smile: i know you are just being Maximum Barney with that comment.

but i think in all seriousness that work is a legitimately interesting piece of contemporary art. you could argue that the form of “Comedian” is bullshit — its a banana and duct tape after all — and that it is worthless and idiotic, and i would absolutely agree with you, and i would argue that is exactly the point of the work, which is why i think it’s brilliant.

also important to remember that 1: what we think of as “talent” has very little to do with the commercial/blue chip art market, and that 2: art has zero monetary value until someone pays for it. then, it is worth whatever it was sold for.

[Barney]

No Mitch, I genuinely have no issue with that piece of art.

Make what you want and if people like it then great. If people want to pay insane amounts of money, even better.

I think we agree that the word talent is a loaded noun.

[Whying_Dutchman]

@mgoldst

in reality it goes like this:

1. start (often without an idea)
2. a shitload of hard work, and struggles, and false starts, and stops, and distractions, and second guessing, and insight, and moments of clarity, and times of ‘flow’ and times of beating your head against a wall, and times of joy, and of defeat…
3. a thing you think may be finished and that nobody may ever care about, see, or acknowledge — but sometimes, people love it, and you love what you made.

So, making art is basically like modding your bass?!

[MikeC]

Sigh

[Whying_Dutchman]