"Technique you can learn, but talent is instinct."
– Stephanie Klein
– Stephanie Klein
What you do with your craft and where you take it... are these things dependent on learned, perfected technique? Or raw, inborn talent? Or can one not do with the other?
8 comments :
Well. My point of view is, if there's talent, technique can be mastered very fast. If no talent, then it takes a longer time to do well with the technique. At the end of the day, even with talent but without hard work (eg. practicing, using the skill often) the untalented but hardworking might get better than the talented.
ATTN: Simon Seow
– So you're saying that technique is necessary but talent is not, kan?
Hmmm...
Both go hand in hand.
One may have the talent but not the technique to execute it and vice versa.
This is a very interesting question. Only last year, I met someone who has only talent but no technique.
This person I know, he is an extremely smart person. He gets straight HDs semester after semester and hence is the top in my class. Lets call this his talent.
But! He severely lacks social skills. I'm not saying he doesn't have friends. he does..but he leeches them off other people. Get what I mean? Its like, he doesn't take the effort to get to know new people. His friends meets someone new and hence the friend is also his. He is also an extremely proud person which means he NEVER asks for opinions and hence makes a lot of mistakes in life. So he has no technique.
I believe to certain degree both talent and technique are inborn and can be learnt also. If one is willing to learn, one can do wonders.
heh.
ATTN: choco
– Hmmm. Somehow, I consider good social skills a talent, too. And I consider it more of a talent than the ability to score, actually. Cos you can study hard to get good grades. But you can't exactly do the same when it comes to IPC (Interpersonal Communication) skills.
It's sad that people don't go far cos they don't handle people well, though. They'd do so much better in life if they were a little better liked by those around them.
This might be of interest:
http://lifehacker.com/5461598/expertise-requires-time-over-talent-so-get-busy
ATTN: ChickLit
– Makes sense. Hmmm. Guess you just need a little bit of both to get by.
There is also something people always seem to miss in regards to the talent vs skill vs technique debate. That is dumb luck and personality which are two things completely outside of the realm of these things. In a very large number of great artworks, the greatness occurred through error, by accident, and other random elements in timing which required great skill, not talent, to make those components come together. Additionally some peoples personality is inherently the type to experiment constantly, to apply ideas randomly, and so on, and this can mean the difference between a talented artist and a vastly more superior artist, because it draws on the luck factor, and application of style. Style alone can be the single difference between mediocre and great work and does not require an awful lot of talent or technique.
ATTN: kingofNYCT@gmail.com
– Oh, that's true. I read Outliers at the end of last year and realised that some people make it big cos they just happened to be at the right place at the right time. Sure, they also had lots going for them in the technique and talent department but their success was mainly attributed to timing.
And what you say about the personality type makes sense. Never thought about it before. After all, if Edison was one to give up easily, he wouldn't have possibly been such a great inventor.
Good insight! Love comments like these that make me think and open my eyes to new points of view.
Post a Comment
Talk to me!