3 ms·

> Plenty of people spend hours drawing and still suck at it. Definitely, but people don't get good at drawing without spending hours at it. You may be stuck a

by Isamu 10y ago

> Plenty of people spend hours drawing and still suck at it. Definitely, but people don't get good at drawing without spending hours at it. You may be stuck at a local maximum, and it may take a good or different coach to get you around it, but generally you can always improve. But just trying harder is ineffective. You have to diagnose your problem, and how to fix it. Maybe you need a coach. I remember having to "invent" all kinds of ways of looking at my drawings to get better. To get them to the next level. After a while you can't look at them objectively ... so you look at them in a mirror. You squint, to get a better sense of the balance. Upside down. You get the idea. It's problem solving. I think of drawing as learning to see.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I got comments on my artwork in kindergarten due to level of detail and such things. I was oil painting landscapes at age 8. I took every elective I could in school, and would have taken more if AP and college prep classes weren't a priority for my parents. I used how-to books, and I still look up techniques from time to time. I've had lots and lots of practice: I went for years drawing and painting daily. That was probably my biggest increase in quality. I used to wish for art school. My current liking is doing surrealist and visionary art in watercolor and ink: I've currently 3 canvases waiting on acrylic. And through it all, I truly think it is a combination of talent plus practice plus interest/focus in some form. Most folks with enough practice can make beautiful landscapes and still life pictures, just like folks can learn to take a basic excellent picture most times. Everyone can learn basics. Not everyone can bend their minds in ways to incorporate subdued symbolism in surrealist work - not everyone can look at a canvas in that way. Some of the really great photography is because the person thought to take the picture - not everyone does that in that way. Not everyone can create. That is where the talent bit comes in. However, if art didn't interest me, I very much doubt I would have filled my time with it to get better. I think this works similarly for math and other things, for the majority of us.
komali2 10y ago
To clarify, can we reduce your point down to "natural talent doesn't exist?"

by Isamu 10y ago

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

I got comments on my artwork in kindergarten due to level of detail and such things. I was oil painting landscapes at age 8. I took every elective I could in school, and would have taken more if AP and college prep classes weren't a priority for my parents. I used how-to books, and I still look up techniques from time to time. I've had lots and lots of practice: I went for years drawing and painting daily. That was probably my biggest increase in quality. I used to wish for art school. My current liking is doing surrealist and visionary art in watercolor and ink: I've currently 3 canvases waiting on acrylic. And through it all, I truly think it is a combination of talent plus practice plus interest/focus in some form. Most folks with enough practice can make beautiful landscapes and still life pictures, just like folks can learn to take a basic excellent picture most times. Everyone can learn basics. Not everyone can bend their minds in ways to incorporate subdued symbolism in surrealist work - not everyone can look at a canvas in that way. Some of the really great photography is because the person thought to take the picture - not everyone does that in that way. Not everyone can create. That is where the talent bit comes in. However, if art didn't interest me, I very much doubt I would have filled my time with it to get better. I think this works similarly for math and other things, for the majority of us.

komali2 10y ago

To clarify, can we reduce your point down to "natural talent doesn't exist?"