Talent v. Technique

ovation22

Mame
Messages
117
Reaction score
1
Well, thanks, John, but dammit, it's not about whether or not I have talent, or Will has talent, or Al has talent.


Sure it's not. ;) (just kidding)

I've noticed with teachers, good teachers imo, that they teach you "how" first before teaching you "why". And sometimes the "why" is discovered on my own. Perhaps this is just how I learn, or what is most effective for my particular personality. Is that developing technique to help unlock talent?

Many, many years ago my parents wanted me to learn violin. I was enrolled in the Suzuki method school. I studied and worked for 2-3 years with the violin before finally abandoning the violin for other interests. Today I can still play "Mary had a little lamb" on the violin, but not much else. Did I lose that talent, or just the technique? Or was it skill? Now I've gone and confused myself. :)


Take care.
 

cascade

Shohin
Messages
484
Reaction score
179
Location
Naples Florida
USDA Zone
10a
Interesting discussion.If you really think about it and you have hypothetical 5people who want to approach bonsai,and let's say one of them will be viewed talented from the very beginning and another one will be considered gifted-in the end.
So we have those 5 novices and two of them have unrevealed abilities.What will happen,what do you think?

-dorothy
 
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
31
Location
Michigan, USA
USDA Zone
5
Will,

I'm going to have to agree with Wayne on this one. As another one that deals with logic problems on a daily basis I see the flaws here. If you're going to get heated and spew forth "facts" let's be sure to stay factual and follow them to "logical" conclusions.

Or, don't get heated and continue the lively discussion.

I am sorry you feel my responses are heated, they are not, not am I upset in any way, you read far too much into my words.

Logically the definition of talent is that it is a natural ability one is born with. This definition is widely accepted and does not vary at all from source to source becuse it is based on what talent has always been defined as since man first pondered on the subject. I doubt seriously if any one here will succeed in changing this definition. They may argue with it, hate it, debate it to death, but at the end of the day, Talent is someone one is born with or not.

Certainly talent can be refined and strengthened by learning techniques and skills, it can be sharpened with practice, but it must be there first.

Why is it that Chris was born with a talent for singing when many others are not? Why is it that certain children are reconized as being gifted, while many others are not? Talent is something we are born with, that is a fact.

The logical concusion is not hard to see at all, the definition for talent has long been established and the fact that talent is inborn is widely accepted and has never been successfully disputed.

Talent is something you are born with. To argue otherwise is illlogical.


Now reconizing this talent is another story....schools have checklists used in conjunction with IQ test to reconized gifted children. (IQ tests will often fail with the extremely gifted.) But I'll save this for another time. The first step here is to face the fact that talent and skill are not the same, one is natural, the other is aquired.

Will
 
Last edited:

ovation22

Mame
Messages
117
Reaction score
1
I am sorry you feel my responses are heated, they are not, not am I upset in any way, you read far too much into my words.

My mistake then. I took the name calling between you and Al as heated.

Now, this thread can continue arguing about semantics or it can continue in the direction that I think Chris intended.

For my part, I am not ready to draw conclusions. Interesting insight so far. Please continue.


Take care.
 
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
31
Location
Michigan, USA
USDA Zone
5
There's no need to get contentious. My point was that quoting others all day long is fine, but let's see what original thought it leads you to. I have often wondered where this line of reasoning was going to take you.

For the record, I do not necessarily dispute the definitions offered, I just have questions about emphasis.

Let's try and leave reading emotions or attitudes into the written word out of this debate, such are not there and attempting to do so only dilutes the conversation.

Quoting others is a valid and time honored method of supporting ones own ideas. This method is used quite often in all debates, research papers, scientific journals, and all such media where intelligent thought is put forth for review. Such quotes and references give a solid foundation for further elaboration on a subject. Without such, opionons are just that, unsupported opinions and the world has quite enough of those already.

This line of reasoning was not designed to takje me anywhere, I just feel that if we are going to discuss talent and technique, the definitions of the words should be considered. No sense reinventing the wheel. Once we agree on what talent is (inborn) and what technique is (aquired) then we can move on.
Will
 
Last edited:

bwaynef

Masterpiece
Messages
2,015
Reaction score
2,405
Location
Clemson SC
USDA Zone
8a
The logical concusion is not hard to see at all, the definition for talent has long been established and the fact that talent is inborn is widely accepted and has never been successfully disputed.

Talent is something you are born with. To argue otherwise is illlogical.Will

You're confusing the issue here will. I'm not attacking what you've given as fact. Your conclusion does not follow the premises you've given. (Theres no mention whatsoever of people being confused ...until you conclude. Re-visit the post where you tell Al he's pulling definitions out of thin air. It applies to you here.)

edit: To be clear, the conclusion drawn was NOT that talent is inborn. The conclusion drawn was that most people are confused by the nuances of skill and talent. BOLDLY unsupported
 
Last edited:
Messages
271
Reaction score
3
Location
Scandinavia
USDA Zone
3b
Aaaaah, the old talent debate.

I hardly ever use the word, because I don't agree with the definition. I don't believe that there is such a thing such as "talent", I think there are only skills that are aquired from learning (in a broad sense). To claim that the definition makes the premises "true", or the phenomenon real is a not really a wise conclusion from my point of view (wich is just that, a perspective). Think about it, a lot of the things we consider true is subject to a lot of differing definitions. Define "man" for instance. Or a simple thing as a "ball".

When looking at a certain result, who cares where that result came from? Are certain results better than others simply because one is talent and the other hard work and practice? Why, and to whom, is that important?

The old "talent produces art" doesn't do it for me, at least not until they find the "art-gene". To claim that biology (wich doesn't change that fast) determines a certain result (as in art, wich is something that changes a tad more rapidly) is not something I can agree with.
 
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
15
Location
Ottawa, KS
USDA Zone
6
I am sorry you feel my responses are heated, they are not, not am I upset in any way, you read far too much into my words.

Logically the definition of talent is that it is a natural ability one is born with. This definition is widely accepted and does not vary at all from source to source becuse it is based on what talent has always been defined as since man first pondered on the subject. I doubt seriously if any one here will succeed in changing this definition. They may argue with it, hate it, debate it to death, but at the end of the day, Talent is someone one is born with or not.

Certainly talent can be refined and strengthened by learning techniques and skills, it can be sharpened with practice, but it must be there first.

Why is it that Chris was born with a talent for singing when many others are not? Why is it that certain children are reconized as being gifted, while many others are not? Talent is something we are born with, that is a fact.

The logical concusion is not hard to see at all, the definition for talent has long been established and the fact that talent is inborn is widely accepted and has never been successfully disputed.

Talent is something you are born with. To argue otherwise is illlogical.


Now reconizing this talent is another story....schools have checklists used in conjunction with IQ test to reconized gifted children. (IQ tests will often fail with the extremely gifted.) But I'll save this for another time. The first step here is to face the fact that talent and skill are not the same, one is natural, the other is aquired.

Will

Let's try to keep this discussion on track. The commonly held definition of talent is innate ability, which would be inborn.

The commonly held definition of ability is not innate.

There is not really any disagreement there.

The discussion is centered on the place and importance accorded to each.
 
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
15
Location
Ottawa, KS
USDA Zone
6
Aaaaah, the old talent debate.

I hardly ever use the word, because I don't agree with the definition. I don't believe that there is such a thing such as "talent", I think there are only skills that are aquired from learning (in a broad sense). To claim that the definition makes the premises "true", or the phenomenon real is a not really a wise conclusion from my point of view (wich is just that, a perspective). Think about it, a lot of the things we consider true is subject to a lot of differing definitions. Define "man" for instance. Or a simple thing as a "ball".

When looking at a certain result, who cares where that result came from? Are certain results better than others simply because one is talent and the other hard work and practice? Why, and to whom, is that important?

The old "talent produces art" doesn't do it for me, at least not until they find the "art-gene". To claim that biology (wich doesn't change that fast) determines a certain result (as in art, wich is something that changes a tad more rapidly) is not something I can agree with.


Thanks for playing! What an interesting array of viewpoints we are seeing so far! Yours is an interesting point of view. Where does a savant like Mozart fit into your belief? I think this may be an opposite extreme from the view that talent is everything and all technique and training is a waste of time.
 

Martin Sweeney

Chumono
Messages
688
Reaction score
165
Location
Waxhaw, NC
USDA Zone
8a
I know I am going to regret typing this but here goes anyway...

If the talent for creating artistic bonsai is inherent, and not trainable, why would the descendant of a hunter/gatherer be blessed with such?

Could the "talent" required for making great bonsai be a general artistic nature or eye, not a specific "talent for creating artistic bonsai"? Sorry, I don't have the talent for expressing artistic ideas.

I agree with the idea of bonsai ability, which is learned and akin to bonsai skill and technique, being what makes a great bonsaiist when married with artistic talent. In other words, you have to learn how to create an artistic bonsai, before you can create an artistic bonsai.

Still might not be enough, but it is a start.

Regards,
Martin
 

Attila Soos

Omono
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
54
Location
Los Angeles (Altadena), CA
USDA Zone
9
Nice post * No it's not*

I am also a little skeptical to accept definitions used in dictionaries as "proof". Definitions often express colloquial meanings, hardly based on scientific evidence. Nothing wrong with definitions, though, they make communication easier.

Talent may be a born aptitude, I wouldn't argue with that. But what specific kind of talent do we need for bonsai?...or any other art form, for that matter? That's what we don't know, and this unknown makes the definition of talent more or less irrelevant.

We all were born with some kind of talent, everyone with a different set. We cannot use what we don't have, but we can work with what we do have.

Creating bonsai, or creating art, is an infinitely complex activity. We need many different "talents" to do the whole thing from start to finish.

First, we need to fall in love with bonsai. This is the first requirement. Some people, like me, are naturally attracted to bonsai. I didn't want to fall in love with it, it just happened. So, I must assume that I was born with it. Otherwise, how could I explain that other people could't care less, no matter how many hours I spent with them talking about the extraordinary beauty in bonsai. They just don't "have it" in them. Call it "the talent to recognize the uniquiness of bonsai". And, all of us who are passionately involved with bonsai (see the members of this forum), were born with this talent. Otherwise, we wouldn't spend enless hours talking about it.

Second, we need to be naturally attracted, and feel at home, in the natural world. This is the second talent we need to have. I see kids that love to be outdoors, and interacting with all living things, from the beginning. They don't need to make an effort. Others are just repulsed by it: they are afraid of everything, don't like to get dirty, and get injured all the time. So, I guess this is another "talent" we need to be born with. If you are not naturally attracted to the outdoors, you will never be good at bonsai.

Third, we need to have a good "eye" for recognizing certain visual patterns. In other words, you see something, and you recognize a certain pattern. This helps us with the design aspect of bonsai.

Fourth, we need the "talent" to reproduce a certain pattern that we visually recognize. That's because it is not enough to "see" something, if you cannot reproduce it later at home. I wold call it visual memory.

Fifth, we need to have a vivid imagination....another talent. This helps us to make up original design patterns.

Sixth, we need to be "good with working with our hands"...an important talent. Otherwise, we won't be able to execute whatever is in our heads.

Seventh, we need to have a good memory. It helps when we remember certain things that we have seen in nature, or learned from somebody.

Eight...attention to details.

Ninth...we need to be open to new ideas: it is part of being a good artist.

Tenth.. we need the ability to express our feelings and ideas. This is a talent every artist nees, since works of art are a form of communication.

Eleventh.. we need a good sense of colors. Recognizing and matching colors can greatly enhance your bonsai creations.

Twelveth..a green thumb. Some of us can't even keep a cactus alive. Others make working with a manzanita look easy.

I listed twelve different types of "talent" that we need. The truth is that every one of us was born with these talents, but at various degrees. Each of these are located at different parts of our brain.

What if you were born less strong in the "imagination" sector. Well, you can compensate with your visual memory: you cannot make up a new design, but you can look at real trees in nature, and imitate those.
What if you have a good imagination, but not very good at "working with your hands". In this case, you will have to work a lot harder to learn various bonsai techniques, than someone who is a "natural", but eventually you can catch up with him if, and even surpass him, due to your great imagination.
What if you are very talented with working your hands, but can't seem to remember the shapes and designs seen in nature (your visual memory is not the best)? Use your imagination and create imaginary designs. They may be even better than the real ones.

You, see, one set of talent can compensate for the lack of others. We all have talent in some areas. What we need, is to recognize what we have, and use it to make up for what we don't. Learning and practicing can discover the potential within us, and eventually lead to success.

Al said that at certain time of our lives, "a light bulb comes on", and we elevate ourselves to a new level. This is when we discover the hidden potential in us, and start putting it to use. This can happen at any age. So, I believe that Al is right in that learning and practicing will take us to a new level because it frees up the talent that we have deep inside.

There is no such thing as the "talent gene" or "bonsai gene". That's because talent is made up of many different components. Nobody scores perfect in all the components, but we have a unique combination. And I don't believe that there are too many people who have no talent in any of the areas above. Being talented in nothing must be pretty rare.

Do I ask myself the question: am I talented? I don't need to. That's because deep inside I know I can do it. I can't expain why and how, but there is that unwaivering certainty, and that's what keeps me going every day. That's what keeps all of us doing bonsai. Many of us eventually will solve this puzzle. Some of us just won't have enough time.
And that's all right. That's why this is such an exciting journey.

Edit: and some of us will have an easier time figuring it all out, than others. Someone who works under a great master and teacher will obviously get there much faster then others, with less than ideal circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Messages
271
Reaction score
3
Location
Scandinavia
USDA Zone
3b
Chris said:
"Where does a savant like Mozart fit into your belief? I think this may be an opposite extreme from the view that talent is everything and all technique and training is a waste of time."

Well, if savant is defined as a certain ability gained from autism (from the lack of a corpus callosum) I have nothing to add to the existing medical explanation. If you mean a remarkable ability in general, there is nothing that proves that such an understanding of music can not be taught. Allow me to cut and paste myself, "I my humble opinion producing great art doesn't require great skills, rather a certain way to see things and there are no proof that this certain way can't be aquired at a very young age."

Extreme as it might be, the theory of social constructivism is a widespread and accepted theory taught (or is it a talent??) at universitys all over the world. Just the same as the theory of medicine, sociology, economy and what not, and about as "true".

One rarely hears of extraordinary abilitys when it comes to skills that aren't highly thought of. Every one seems to be under the impression that "art" is something to strive for, something that is just a little bit better than everything else. How many of you (and me sometimes) wish they would excel in sports or something creative like singing, painting or writing? How many of you wish to excel in welding, masonry or something like that? My guess is far from the majority.

From my point of view there are things that could explain excellent results far better than "talent", such as to "think outside the box", intention, expressing something personal, trying to be unique, not following set rules or formulas etc.

Just a thought: Would successfully avoiding any kind of recognition throughout a lifetime be a "talent"? In other words, can you suck so hard it's a talent? :)
 
Messages
271
Reaction score
3
Location
Scandinavia
USDA Zone
3b
Good post, Attila!

I'd agree if you replaced all the "naturally", "natural" etc. with "taught" or "learned" and all the "talent" with "ability"! :)
 
Messages
271
Reaction score
3
Location
Scandinavia
USDA Zone
3b
'nother thing while I'm at it. Doesn't it feel better to say that "I can't do what he/she does because it's not in my genes, so I'm biologically unable to achieve awesomeness" than to say "I can't do what he/she does because I don't have time, the ambition, the financial means, the intent, the skills, the master to teach me, the drive etc."? As soon as you use the "biology card", you swear yourself free of any potential personal attacks. It also becomes a question of choice. "I choose not to make the best of my situation". Think about javelin (the sport), imagine the waste of resources if you were super strong, tall and with excellent motoric skills and technique and was watching tv all day. People would constantly question your lifestyle. I'm short, weak decent motoric skills but utterly lazy. At least no one questions why I don't throw sticks a all day.
 

Attila Soos

Omono
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
54
Location
Los Angeles (Altadena), CA
USDA Zone
9
Good post, Attila!

I'd agree if you replaced all the "naturally", "natural" etc. with "taught" or "learned" and all the "talent" with "ability"! :)

As you can see, sometime I put the word talent between quotation marks. That's because I find the source of it rather uncertain. Natural vs. learned, who knows.

I occasionally read scientific articles on brain functions, since the brain is such a fascinating thing. I remember reading that there are millions of neural connections established in our brain, and those connections define who we are and what we do. But the brain has the ability to create new connections, if we consciously alter our way of doing things.

Could these new connections come across as new, previously non-existent abilities, or talent, if you will?

In early elementary school, I was very lame in drawing. I was convinced that I had no talent, whatsoever, and I hated drawing. The teachers seemed to agree with me.

Then, one summer, my cousin came to live with us for a month. He had an amazing talent in drawing, and convinced me to draw with him. We were about eight years-old. After a week or so, I really got into drawing. We were drawing Disney cartoon figures, and everything else in sight. After he left, I continued drawing. I was drawing Michelangelo statues, copying Rennaissance paintings, and sometimes spent a whole day on the surrounding hills, drawing landscapes and churches inspired by what I saw.
I was simply amazed by how well I could draw and later paint. It became my main hobby. Then one day I broke my right wrist, and it had to be put in a cast. No problem: within a week, I learned to draw with my left hand, and was doing great.

People who thought that I had no talent, had to change their mind, and started encouraging me to pursue my (new) talent. One could say that I always had the talent, and just needed someone to bring it out. But I really tried at the beginning, and didn't work, until that summer day...
If you compared my drawings with those from a year before, you wouldn't believe that they were done by the same person. And this happened without a teacher, I did it entirely on my own.

The power of new neural connections in our brain...you never know. Hindsight is always 20/20.
 
Last edited:
Messages
271
Reaction score
3
Location
Scandinavia
USDA Zone
3b
Attila, I couldn't write a better example of a skill aquired from learning if I tried.
 
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
15
Location
Ottawa, KS
USDA Zone
6
I know I am going to regret typing this but here goes anyway...

If the talent for creating artistic bonsai is inherent, and not trainable, why would the descendant of a hunter/gatherer be blessed with such?

Could the "talent" required for making great bonsai be a general artistic nature or eye, not a specific "talent for creating artistic bonsai"? Sorry, I don't have the talent for expressing artistic ideas.

I agree with the idea of bonsai ability, which is learned and akin to bonsai skill and technique, being what makes a great bonsaiist when married with artistic talent. In other words, you have to learn how to create an artistic bonsai, before you can create an artistic bonsai.

Still might not be enough, but it is a start.

Regards,
Martin

Martin,
The question at hand was far more general, dealing with artistic talent. Bonsai ability is of course a blend of, perhaps, talent and technique. My question had to do with the relationship between the two, not bonsai "talent" as such.
 
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
15
Location
Ottawa, KS
USDA Zone
6
Nice post * No it's not*

I am also a little skeptical to accept definitions used in dictionaries as "proof". Definitions often express colloquial meanings, hardly based on scientific evidence. Nothing wrong with definitions, though, they make communication easier.

Attila, while I may disagree with some of your conclusions sometimes, let me say that I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that goes into your replies. You are a worthy "opponent" in a battle of wits, and you always make me think. I like that.

Thank you so much for bringing up the nature of dictionaries as such. Dictionaries are not arbiters of meaning, they are descriptive of common usage of words and concepts. As such the definitions change over time, and the best dictionaries provide a history of those usages.

The thing about definitions, though, is that they need to be agreed upon for a common debate. If your definition of talent is diametrically opposed to mine, we may think we disagree but be saying exactly the same thing, or vice versa!
 
Top Bottom