Girl with flowers drawing - Page 2

On June 20 2013 15:27 AlgeriaT wrote:
That's quite a level of skill. Amazing to see how she came alive at some point during your sketching of her right eye.

May I ask, how did you get to this level? How much of this would you attribute to talent and how much to practice?

On June 21 2013 00:41 Demonhunter04 wrote:


No such thing as talent, actually.

On June 21 2013 01:52 danl9rm wrote:


You must not have children. Talent definitely exists.

That said, I'd be curious to hear Glider's guess to AlgeriaT's question.

On June 20 2013 22:58 beef42 wrote:
So I'm sure this is on everyone's mind so I'm going to step up and be stupid in public for the greater good.

What is sepia anyway?

On June 20 2013 23:37 danl9rm wrote:
Am disappoint. When I saw the title I thought it was a final fantasy 7 throw-back.

5-stars anyway.

edit: Also, I think the word you were looking for is "crushed."

On June 21 2013 01:52 danl9rm wrote:


You must not have children. Talent definitely exists.

That said, I'd be curious to hear Glider's guess to AlgeriaT's question.

On June 21 2013 02:06 husniack wrote:


Most people can practice their whole lives and not obtain this level. Think of it like this:

When you are born, god gives you certain traits aka "colors."
-Hand size
-Dexterity
-Visualization
-Hand-eye coordination
-Ability to sense and filter the environment
-So on

Over time, we start to mix these colors together. Having good role models or influences, hastens this mixing process. The mixing process then forms for the individual a self-identity --> joy in seeing one's passion --> positive loop.

However the process fundamentally began with his god-given colors. if a person lacks blue and yellow and has no green to begin with, then there's no way he can make green. You can only "mix" with the materials you have.

Nature provides the color. Nurture shapes the form.

On June 21 2013 05:05 teapot wrote:
Uh, it is popular before photographs...

People been using Sepia and Sanguine for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanguine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepia_(color)

Awesome drawing btw

On June 21 2013 06:01 Demonhunter04 wrote:


There is intelligence and personality and there are things like good genetics (only really an issue in sports), but there is no such thing as talent. Other effects cause this illusion, namely transference of skills, confirmation bias, etc. People don't remember all those times when someone was unremarkable at first but became good with practice, which is what really happens. A humorous example of this memory bias is that you can make people believe you're clairvoyant if you make opposing predictions - people remember all the times your predictions come true, but without recording it somewhere, they'll usually forget the predictions that don't. Saying "you must not have children" implies that you believe your personal perceptions (which is only a sliver of what you actually experienced, let alone everyone else) are indicative of reality. Science has shown us otherwise, time and time again.

My own experiences as a child led me to believe that talent is a real phenomenon, but it really isn't. This has been studied by psychologists and neuroscientists extensively. There is always some other explanation - Losira, for example, played the piano as a child, which contributed heavily to his skill with keyboards.



Physical dimensions, health, and neurological development certainly do make a difference, but the reason people plateau is typically because people stop doing attentive practice beyond a point. Once they become "good enough" for their purposes, they often stop improving because they're doing it semiconsciously. This is an adaptation which frees up our attention when we do tasks we're used to, but has to be worked around if you want to keep improving.

On June 21 2013 06:36 danl9rm wrote:


I believe we may be overstepping the bounds of the intention of this thread.

I also feel we may not be as far off on agreement, after your excellent explanation, than at first perceived. I admit I hastily asserted that talent existed and dropped it just as quickly, but as to how much, I don't think I could ever guess. That's why I used that same verb in my next thought: "guess."

I'm not in either camp that says it's all talent or it's all hard work. I mentioned kids because after you have a few it is easy to tell, night and day so, that they are explicitly better at some things than others, even initially. Surely, the largest discrepancies come through hard work, but that doesn't negate the propensities given at birth.

I would agree, though, as you probably believe, that hard work is the factor most attributable to success in whatever skill. That doesn't change the fact that some people can practice 5 hours and be twice as good as the guy that practiced 10, just as intentionally.

Anyway, for brevity's sake, I would say on a grand scale of 1 being all hard work and 100 being all talent, I would fall much, much closer to the 1-side. Can hard work overcome any amount of talent? I guess that's the age-old question. I don't know. And, I'm not going to give it a shot either.

On June 21 2013 01:52 danl9rm wrote:


You must not have children. Talent definitely exists.

That said, I'd be curious to hear Glider's guess to AlgeriaT's question.

On June 21 2013 06:01 Demonhunter04 wrote:


There is intelligence and personality and there are things like good genetics (only really an issue in sports), but there is no such thing as talent. Other effects cause this illusion, namely transference of skills, confirmation bias, etc. People don't remember all those times when someone was unremarkable at first but became good with practice, which is what really happens. A humorous example of this memory bias is that you can make people believe you're clairvoyant if you make opposing predictions - people remember all the times your predictions come true, but without recording it somewhere, they'll usually forget the predictions that don't. Saying "you must not have children" implies that you believe your personal perceptions (which is only a sliver of what you actually experienced, let alone everyone else) are indicative of reality. Science has shown us otherwise, time and time again.

My own experiences as a child led me to believe that talent is a real phenomenon, but it really isn't. This has been studied by psychologists and neuroscientists extensively. There is always some other explanation - Losira, for example, played the piano as a child, which contributed heavily to his skill with keyboards.



Physical dimensions, health, and neurological development certainly do make a difference, but the reason people plateau is typically because people stop doing attentive practice beyond a point. Once they become "good enough" for their purposes, they often stop improving because they're doing it semiconsciously. This is an adaptation which frees up our attention when we do tasks we're used to, but has to be worked around if you want to keep improving.