4 ms·
As someone interested in education (of self and of others) and generally interested in the notion of talent itself, I have been trying to form my own personal u
by yomly 10y ago
As someone interested in education (of self and of others) and generally interested in the notion of talent itself, I have been trying to form my own personal understanding of what it means to be talented.
My fundamental belief is that almost anything can be learned under the right instruction. Talent determines two things:
1 - your upper ceiling of "achievement" in a particular dimension, and
2 - how far you can progress within a given dimension without instruction.
That is, a naturally gifted person is likely to get very good at something they were "destined to do" regardless of if they had any decent instruction. With the right instruction, they may well reach some stratospheric heights.
1 is important because at some point a talented individual reaches a place where there is no longer any one person who can teach them anything new in their dimension and so they have to rely on their instinct to progress further.
Schopenhauer had the quote:
Talent is like the marksman who hits a target which others cannot reach; genius is like the marksman who hits a target … which others cannot even see.
There seems to be some conflict in how Schopenhauer interpret talent and genius, but that final sentiment is important to my point regarding a talented/gifted/genius individual not requiring instruction. No one can really teach you how to push a field to new unreached heights.
My personal favourite anecdote of genius is when Chopin's first musical teacher Zywny refrained from teaching him (aged 8 years old) any keyboard technique lest he interfere with his natural instinct. In his later teenage years and early twenties went on to write music quite unlike anything written for the piano at the time - thanks to his unorthodox technique.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoRelated to your Chopin anecdote, numerous monster & legendary guitar players and song writers (Chet Atkins, Willie Nelson, & tons more) cited Django Reinhardt, the "two-fingered gypsy jazz guitarist" as opening their horizons more than any other. It was from his technique that his creativity could flow. As if the handicap was simply an augmentation - as you mention - and didn't terribly interfere with what he was 'destined to do' by way of art. As both a passionate study of both guitar and writing (fiction, essays, etc), I do agree that reaching 'beyond' is part of achieving high personal success in either field. Sort of like the phrase "knowing the rules before breaking them" can acknowledge the role of both structure and rebellion. Both have important facets in growth, and I think a lot of times lay-people can mistake "broken rules" that accidentally work for "talent" and it is frustrating.
- yomly 10y ago>I think a lot of times lay-people can mistake "broken rules" that accidentally work for "talent" and it is frustrating. Couldn't agree more. To quote Picasso: "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child" Children break all the rules when painting and it literally took him his life's work to understand how to effectively formalise the lack of formalism. And thus there are millions/billions of children in the history of art, but there was only one Picasso...