The Myth of Talent

[JAS_Photo]

I think this has been linked to before but I am going to start a thread just for this topic.

It is from Craig Tanner's website. He has a podcast as well as a written article on this. Right here

It is well worth the about thirty minutes it takes to listen to. What he is really saying is that talent rather being an innate aptitude that one is born with it is more a lot of hard work, learning, application of what is learned and practice, practice, practice.

So whether it is photography you aspire to or something other you can achieve your goals.

A couple of other links from his article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...9E83414B7F4945
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...1794/index.htm


Speaking of talent - here is a link from Joe McNally's most recent blog post.

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2011/...e-last-launch/

A very powerful piece of writing that is made even more poignant by comments from the readers particularily two who were young kids at the time, both influenced by Joe's work to follow their later professions. Joe is a well known photographer who is revered by other photographers, a photographer's photographer, but his stories are self deprecating, humourous and very informative in explaining his often seat of the pants approach to these big projects.

[Wicked Dark]

I read that a while ago and disagree. Practice will give you good technique, but if you can't spot a good photograph to begin with, all the technique in the world won't help you.

[JAS_Photo]

I think experience and a desire to do it will teach you to "see". Foremost is the desire and secondly the ability to push yourself to go beyond the "safety zone" so to speak.

For instance, the Club just recently acquired this watercolour painting by Frederick M. Bell-Smith, dated 1897. It is beautifully constructed with near, middle and background points of interest. The mountains form a dominant triangle and the rapids with the logs lead your eye into the painting. The boulders on either side of the rapids help anchor the picture. All in all it is classically rendered. If I had taken a photo like this, I would be quite proud of myself.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcevent...4086/lightbox/

Next, a page of photographs by well-known photographer, Darwin Wigget. He particularly specializes in in mountain landscapes. Each of his photographs has typical foreground interest that anchors the photo and leads your eye into the photo, dominant triangular shapes. Rule of thirds is practiced in most of these. And fabulous lighting and colour. All of these techniques can be studied and learned after which the onus is on the particular artist to practice and implement them.

http://www.darwinwiggett.com/gallery.php?gallery=spring

My point in comparing the two mediums from, one predating the other by many decades, is to show learned technique can be applied to create stunning art. I hope that makes some sense.

[Gremlich]

I'm with Wicked.

Talent or technician.

I know people in both camps. I am in the latter group.

[JAS_Photo]

Practice, practice, practice until the technique becomes innate = talent.

[Wicked Dark]

I don't agree. There's an element of natural affinity in real talent that can't be faked with technicality. There's vision and execution that can come quickly to a person who has no experience at all. It happens in photography with many newbies and sometimes in other arts. Oh yeah, we all want to level the playing fields now and make it seem like everything is attainable to everyone. It's the 'go for the tie' syndrome that does nothing to reward actual ability. Oh let's all be special. When that happens, no one is. Practice builds good habits and skills, but it will never give someone the innate ability to do something well without that practice. Some can, some can't in all things. How else explain those individuals who rise to the top of a given proclivity without experience or years of practice? Talent.