Creativity: are you born with it?
Blogger Brady Russell offers up his theory on creativity. His main point is that an artist’s signature style is carried over from a very young age, and that characteristics of someone’s adult work can be seen in their earliest drawings.
But in his post, he also says that the most successful creative people are innately creative, that they’re born with it, and no amount of practice or conditioning can help those who aren’t simply “born with it”. You either have it or you don’t.
Von Allen disagrees with Brady, and sums up his thoughts in this reply to Brady’s post:
It takes courage to do art. To have the courage of your conviction and do art when perhaps no one else believes in you. When it comes to art, that’s the only talent there is. The courage to overcome. By conflating populism with artistic merit (or Talent or whatever word you choose to use), you are undermining the inherent nature of what art is. There is nothing God-given about art at all. There is the work. And there is courage to do the work.
And Brady responds.
Dean Haspiel, who is mentioned in the original post, has a conversation going within his site’s comments.
The discussion Brady’s post created may have veered from his original intention, but it’s an interesting one. So, what do you think? Do you believe in god-given talent, or is a great artist just the result of conditioning, practice, cultivated ability, or courage?
I generally consider “creativity” and “talent” to be two very different things. Creativity has to do with problem-solving and unique ways of thinking, and I believe there are some people that are born with it. That is not to say that others cannot train themselves to think creatively. Talent has more to do with skill and the ability to execute ideas. I don’t think people are born with this.
Without creativity, using all the talent in the world will still result in boring things. And without talent, all those creative, fun ideas won’t come to fruition. If you want to throw “courage” into the mix, it does take determination and strength to push both creativity and talent to the highest levels.
I’m not sure if I’m making any sense. Building my creativity and talent during finals at school has fried my brain.
It always annoys me when people act like this thing called “talent” allowed you to start drawing overnight. How many times have I heard people say, “I can’t draw, I have no talent.”
As far as I’m concerned, there is no “can’t” and there’s certainly no magic “talent.” Talent, if anything, is someone’s ability to find pleasure in an activity that is laborious to most other people, and that’s all. Even an eye for composition isn’t worth much without some experience.
I had a friend try to quantify my drawing work to his girlfriend by asking how many sketchbooks I’ve filled. What artist can count their sketchbooks? It was a ridiculous question, and shows how little people understand what is really involved in being able to do the most minor bit of cartoon work.
I agree with the quote about courage. It takes courage, in part, because art is not a passive, gentle activity like everyone treats it. It’s an act of aggression, of seizing an audience’s attention, and most people don’t have the wherewithal to do that again and again.
It is the ultimate snobbery to say that creativity is god-given and that creativity is only artistic. Von Allen is spot on, confidence is the key, and if you’re given that at a young age, you learn very quickly, and so you get more praise; it’s a recursive loop.
It’s very often that creative supportive parents have creative ‘talented’ children. There are always other factors to consider, but they all contribute to a child’s confidence to grow artistically.
For some people they have a lot of confidence and are extremely prolific, for others it is slow hard work usually peppered but extreme low confidence. you can see this in songwriting, writing, drawing, playing an instrument… anything.
I always believed that the creation of art was 99% perspiration, creativity, and skill; however, over time I can’t help but to think that there’s something a little deeper than that–some sort of spark of inspiration that truly makes a piece astounding.
Obviously, no matter how much “talent” or “creativity” one person has, their art will be crap without hours upon hours of hard work. Then again, another person could invest their whole life to the study of art and come up short if they’re lacking that inner something.
I think of my high school art teacher; the woman really couldn’t do anything else but art but no matter how hard she tried and worked all her pieces were always…off. She could never produce high quality art (and so she taught instead :’/)
There’s no way to know, but maybe there is a factor in the production of art that is unlearned–however, we can never know if it is a born talent or something much more complex.
A teacher I had used to say: “I can teach you to draw, but I can’t make you into an artist.” This may sound almost koan-like but it makes sense to me.
I tend to think of “talent” as a unique and innate aptitude for something, as opposed to “skill” which can be learned and augmented. Someone with middling talent, for instance, can appear more talented by compensating with substantial more equity on the skill side, (sweat and learning). To the viewer, it shouldn’t be evident or make a difference.
“Creativity” seems to me something that is in the core conceptualizing of ideas and successful communication of them, especially unique ideas. That can be a product of nature and/or nurture, but I no longer believe it is equally accessible to all, since no two people have equal nature/nurture experiences. Of course by the same token, i don’t think there are people who are entirely and infallibly creative 100 % of the time either, despite efforts of the media to give that impression.
I hate theoryspeak. The only purpose in establishing “innate ability” is the elitist exclusion principle – these can for they are God’s blessed fair-haired children; these can not, for the countenance of the Lord doth shine not upon them.
None of us, in any aspect, is entirely the product of either nurture or nature. Rather, we are blends of both, and of their interactions – our natures cause us to perceive and react to nurture and environments in distinct ways, for instance. These interactions are so rich and multifaceted that to attempt to authoritatively separate our experiences and actions as due to one or the other is a tremendous vanity.
There is no definitive answer for the same reason there are no undisputed great artists. (No, not even “the masters”; their aesthetics are contrary in some non-European cultures.)
Will beat me too it.
Aptitude.
It’s the same thing that makes athletes into pros and brains into moguls. You could take the same two people and see them both through the same schooling, same environment, let’s say similar families and opportunities. One may have a natural ability, the other may have to work very hard just to keep up. Who has more talent? Is it the person with the innate ability to easily progress and learn or the person who constantly struggles yet never abandons their quest for perfection?
To me this is where “talent” comes in. I agree that ANYONE can draw. When you write letters, you draw a symbolic reference to meaning and sound. All it takes is repetition, a little study and some time and effort and anyone CAN draw. Those who draw because they love it and have a natural gift will generally tend to do better because it’s easier for them.
But in terms of art? There’s bad mechanics and then there’s the art you don’t do. 100% of art not done is bad art.
I think there’s a big connection between creativity and personality types – like the Meyers-Briggs tests. I think for a lot of people “creativity” comes from a willingness to explore, to try new things, and to risk failure. For people looking to do things efficiently, that can be a tough approach to a problem.
To ask whether art is God given or cultivated is confusing the issue. It’s both. We are given skills or a propensity (This is part of the God given gift) and then we run with it or we don’t. WAY too much of the mindset in our country is that being a good artist sort of falls in the laps of a few select human beings. But giving God the credit or not for the end result is an entirely separate issue. I believe God also provides the means for artists to hone their craft.
All that considered, I’ve learned there are several levels to art. Transfer of something we see to the page (mentally conceived or in front of us), mechanics of different media and creativity in communication. Some artists are giants in one area (by gift or nose to the grindstone, both of which I believe are God given opportunities) but very deficient in others. Where one is deficient, it needs to be realized in the same way that a worker at any other job realizes they are bad at an aspect of what they do and then learns to control it over time.
If a worker believes they have it all together, they will continue to suck at their task, but if they learn from knowledgeable feedback, they will become better. I know people who were horrible at certain things in art. Including myself, who have found the pieces they were missing and are much better now. I’ve become way better at art on every level: representationally, creatively and mechanically over the past year of being under masterful teaching, doing art full time and drawing roughly 10 hours a day. I would never have the commitment to do that if I didn’t love it, and the love of the craft is my God-given gift as much as the opportunity I have to nurture and do art full time is.
The greatest artists are always learning.
I wanted to add that although I use myself as an example, I still have a tremendous way to go. I guess in the end we’ll see how it turned out for me. Bottom line, I believe that good art requires the love and this is one of the given gifts that makes all the hard work follow. Other gifts are opportunity, the humbleness to learn from others and the guts to get out there. Okay, I’m done.