Talent v. Technique

[Rick Moquin]

If you are going to make a point of using fact and logic, it only makes sense to present your facts, draw your conclusions, and then defend them. That is the way these things are done. But we all know there is something you are not finishing here.

... may I be so bold to add analyze the findings and then come to a foredrawn conclusion, anything else merely constitutes ones opinion.

 

[Chris Johnston]

There were some excellent thoughts put forth by Attila and a few others, I did enjoy reading those, they actually added to the discussion and gave us something to chew on. I apologize, I thought this was going to be a real discussion based on actual facts and not opinions or feelings. My bad, I assume too much.
Will

Will, first let me thank you for turning off the ignore feature. I find that I do not need to agree with someone to like them and that I do not need to like them to agree with them. I can also disagree without animosity.

But comments like your last one are part and parcel with the heat that comes into forum discussions. That type of comment attempts to diminish the person on the other side of the question. You set yourself up as superior and thank one or two people once again slighting the contributions of others in the thread. Now I know that when I thank folks for contributing their thoughts, I don't mention everyone. But I phrase it so that the others know I appreciated their input, too.

We have been discussing "facts" and the fact is that there is a great deal of difference of opinion about the nature of talent. Great minds have been debating that one for centuries. The problem is that even stipulating your definitions as they are, you still haven't added one thing to the debate. That would be the conclusions you draw.

The question I posed was NOT "what is the definition of talent?" It was,

I've been pondering this for a while. The question has come to mind, based on other discussions, whether talent is the determining factor on whether art is art or bonsai is art, or whether other factors must be incorporated.

What role does talent play in the development of great bonsai? And who decides whether someone has talent or not? Is it solely by the trees they exhibit?

The extremes of the scale are obvious to almost everyone. Michael Hagedorn has talent obvious to anyone, as does Boon, as does Suthin. But does it take a body of work to be declared talented?

What about those of us who must make a living in other ways, making it take much longer to develop a great collection? What if we don't have unlimited funds and time to either collect or purchase great material to work with? Does it mean we are untalented?

Does Will Heath have talent? Vance Wood? Irene? Chris Johnston? How do we know or not?

So I ask you again, without any heat, what point are you trying to make? You have said that talent is inborn and backed that up with dictionary definitions. Is that it? Is that all there is?

 

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for your opinion Chris, it certainly adds to the knowledge presented here.

To answer you questions about my beliefs and as to why I have not dove deeper into this subject, I refer you to my very first post here as quoted below...

Strangely enough, I posted an uncompleted start of an article on talent in the editor section at AoB yesterday.....I will withhold my the majority of my thoughts and opinions on this subject due to duplication and post the article when it is completed.

However, this subject is indeed timely and will no doubt give me much to think about and address.

I will add this though.... There are people alive today that can duplicate every brush stoke of Monet, they know every habit he had and every preference of color. They know how Monet painted better than he did himself. They have knowledge, but with all that knowledge they can not create a masterpiece of their own.

There are painters today that paint often and paint very good paintings, but they are not great, they never will be, they have all the skills, they have been taught all the techniques, they just don't have that one ingredient that separates the craftsman from the artist.

Talent.

It can't be learned, it can't be bought, it can't be traded for or stolen, you either have it, or you don't. Period.

Talent can be developed from raw to refined, talent can be refined by learning technique, but the talent must be there to start with.

It is easy to see those with talent, it is easy to see those without, but it is always best to let the person discover their talent or lack of on their own.....besides those without will not believe you and those with will find out anyhow. Discovering your own talent or lack thereof is something everyone will do eventually.

Have a good day,


Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

Will, first let me thank you for turning off the ignore feature. I find that I do not need to agree with someone to like them and that I do not need to like them to agree with them. I can also disagree without animosity.

But comments like your last one are part and parcel with the heat that comes into forum discussions. That type of comment attempts to diminish the person on the other side of the question. You set yourself up as superior and thank one or two people once again slighting the contributions of others in the thread. Now I know that when I thank folks for contributing their thoughts, I don't mention everyone. But I phrase it so that the others know I appreciated their input, too.

We have been discussing "facts" and the fact is that there is a great deal of difference of opinion about the nature of talent. Great minds have been debating that one for centuries. The problem is that even stipulating your definitions as they are, you still haven't added one thing to the debate. That would be the conclusions you draw.

The question I posed was NOT "what is the definition of talent?" It was,



So I ask you again, without any heat, what point are you trying to make? You have said that talent is inborn and backed that up with dictionary definitions. Is that it? Is that all there is?

Thanks for your opinion Chris, it certainly adds to the knowledge presented here.

To answer you questions about my beliefs and as to why I have not dove deeper into this subject, I refer you to my very first post here as quoted below...

Have a good day,


Will

Will you practice what you preach here and on your own forums, or will you completely ignore my other point?

 

[Vance Wood]

Chris: Excuse me for being dense, but what point are you looking for from Will, I seem to have forgotten.

 

[Anonymous User]

So have I, I'm sorry.



Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

Fine, we will go on ignoring a superior attitude and snide comments if they come from one member of the forum. Interesting, though, that you would never post that on either of your own sites.

 

[Anonymous User]

Fine, we will go on ignoring a superior attitude and snide comments if they come from one member of the forum. Interesting, though, that you would never post that on either of your own sites.

No snide comments at all, and you imagine the attitude, basing your assumption on nothing more than typed words.

And the other sites you mentioned, for the record are not mine, but belong to the active editors. The truth is that you really have no idea what I would or would not post there.

Now, are we discussing talent and technique, or are we discussing Will Heath?



Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

We've been trying to discuss talent v. technique and the weight that should be given to each. If I stipulate your definition of talent, we still haven't approached the question yet. Do you have an opinion on the actual question?

 

[Anonymous User]

Chris,

I count 11 questions in your first post, which of these are you referring to?


Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

Chris,

I count 11 questions in your first post, which of these are you referring to?
Will

Why is it impossible for you to give a direct answer? Is there anyone else who has participated in this thread or even just read it who does not understand to which question I am referring?

 

[Chris Johnston]

We've been trying to discuss talent v. technique and the weight that should be given to each. If I stipulate your definition of talent, we still haven't approached the question yet. Do you have an opinion on the actual question?

This is the question you are dancing around. I can't for the life of me understand what you would have to gain by refusing to state an opinion. Do you think you will get as much varied discussion at AoB? I doubt it. Are you afraid you will tip your hand too soon and have people able to refute your argument in a forum you do not control?

You are forever hollering about discussing the issues. Well do it!

 

[Vance Wood]

Maybe if you would ask that question, and that question alone (what ever it is) you might get what you are looking for. I for one don't remember what it was and I am not going to re-read this entire post just to discover what it is.

 

[Chris Johnston]

Maybe if you would ask that question, and that question alone (what ever it is) you might get what you are looking for. I for one don't remember what it was and I am not going to re-read this entire post just to discover what it is.

I don't know why the two of you are working so hard to wear me out on this question.

Will, I stipulate your dictionary definitions of talent.

What would you say is the relative importance and relationship between talent and technique as it relates to art in general and bonsai art in particular?

Now if anyone has difficulty understanding what I am asking I suggest an English As a Second Language forum.

 

[agraham]

"whether talent is the determining factor on whether art is art or bonsai is art, or whether other factors must be incorporated."

I think this is the main thrust of the question Vance.I could paraphrase it for you if that would help.But then,I'm not always very good with words.Hell...I'll give it a try.

"which is more important in developing an artistic bonsai......talent or technique?"

andy

 

[Vance Wood]

"whether talent is the determining factor on whether art is art or bonsai is art, or whether other factors must be incorporated."

I think this is the main thrust of the question Vance.I could paraphrase it for you if that would help.But then,I'm not always very good with words.Hell...I'll give it a try.

"which is more important in developing an artistic bonsai......talent or technique?"

andy

You want my answer? In the beginning; technique. Without technique there is no hope of manifesting talent. However without talent all the wiring skills in the world and all the ability to pinch and prune will lead to nothing better than the ubiquitous cookie cutter bonsai. Of course this is just my view point and does not necessarily reflect that of Will Heath. But there is a fly in the ointment; you have stated artistic bonsai. This is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is possible that technique alone can produce an artistic result, cookie cutter bonsai, but to produce a true individual work of art is the work of talent. You cannot seperate the two. I know this to be true because in the many years I have been growing bonsai and teaching the same I have seen my share of technicsal wizards that could not design an individual tree to save their proverbial lives. Everything else is merely samantics and vain argument that means little.

 

[Chris Johnston]

You want my answer? In the beginning; technique. Without technique there is no hope of manifesting talent. However without talent all the wiring skills in the world and all the ability to pinch and prune will lead to nothing better than the ubiquitous cookie cutter bonsai. Of course this is just my view point and does not necessarily reflect that of Will Heath. But there is a fly in the ointment; you have stated artistic bonsai. This is an entirely different kettle of fish.

It is possible that technique alone can produce an artistic result, cookie cutter bonsai, but to produce a true individual work of art is the work of talent. You cannot seperate the two. I know this to be true because in the many years I have been growing bonsai and teaching the same I have seen my share of technicsal wizards that could not design an individual tree to save their proverbial lives. Everything else is merely samantics and vain argument that means little.

Vance, with all due respect, the first portion of your post I agree with to an extent. But do you really make a significant difference between bonsai art and artistic bonsai? What is the distinction? If you say the addition of talent, you have used circular reasoning, so let's find a better definition than that.

 

[Anonymous User]

"which is more important in developing an artistic bonsai......talent or technique?"

You need both, talent for the artistic vision and technique to be able to carry it out.

But talent is the most important because it can not be learned, bought, given, or aquired. Technique can be learned. So there no doubt are far more people highly skilled in technique than there are people with the talent to use it to create artistic bonsai.



Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

You need both, talent for the artistic vision and technique to be able to carry it out.

But talent is the most important because it can not be learned, bought, given, or aquired. Technique can be learned. So there no doubt are far more people highly skilled in technique than there are people with the talent to use it to create artistic bonsai.

Will

Can you give an example of someone you would consider highly skilled in technique but not talented? I know that's kind of a mine field to walk in, but I'd be interested to see where your thinking is going.

 

[Jon Chown]

For example, I have a friend who plays a mean guitar, his technique is copybook and yet he does not have the talent to crate his own music tunes. He has learnt to copy other peoples music only.

So perhaps many of us have the technique under control and are able to copy other bonsai that we have seen in real life or in pictures but we lack the talent to create a design of our own.

Jon