Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


Re: talent? NO

From: Henry Taylor (taylorh)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2000 - 11:02:04 PDT

  • Next message: Kimberly Herbert: "RE: paper clips"

    True talent is, I believe, effortless, an inate quality and not a
    learned thing. At the same time the qualities that go into the
    makeup of a talent are probably, or for the most part, learnable
    with effort. This is a small thing and probably of little moment
    to anyone other than the one who must make the effort.

    Talent may be a fun concept to toss about and discuss but other
    than for the practitioner it is a pretty meaningless distinction.
    You do the work and it succeeds or fails. If you have talent of
    any sort success may come more frequently--if you choose the
    right projects. It is about as important as whether the camera
    has talent or not. Does the task come easily to the camera? To
    some cameras yes to others no. It is merely an extention of the
    term in an unusual context. You could call some cameras more
    "talented" if you wish and be somewhat accurate in doing so. If
    you are hiring an artist or buying a camera it's limitations and
    efficiency become a serious issue. But, otherwise, who cares?

    The renaissance courtier did us a disservice long ago. The
    renaissance court was a boring place all in all. The most
    exciting things were games of heirarchy and one upsmanship. The
    courtier who could play effectively at being an insider got the
    brownie points. The ambitious ones made it a point to be
    knowledgable in arcane insider knowledge on a number of subjects
    including art and the sciences... Eventually science and
    technology superceded the ability of most and arttalk became more
    important.
    In reality there was no practical reason for a courtier to
    understand the issues that concerned artists other than to gain
    points in some obscure game of who's the best. As the merchan
    classes greww in importance and began to assume some roles
    formerly held be the courtier class the courtier became the
    measure of an educated person. Long after the demise of that
    culture, the game persists and we teach it's elements as if they
    mattered.

    Talent becomes a serious issue for the student and teacher when
    the student approaches mastery and a professional life. It is a
    serious issue for whoever would pay for the artist's time BEFORE
    a project is completed--the ease and efficiency of time in a work
    reflect the real talent. Some less talented individual can likely
    do the same thing with greater effort given sufficient time. AN
    emphasis on talent in elementary or high school (other than a
    vo-tech) distinguishes one group of students from another to the
    detriment of those lacking natural talent or unusual committment.
    It confirms students in their isolation from art and their need
    to rely on professionals. ("don't try this at home kids!")

    A more important issue is uncovering WHICH talent(s) the student
    posesses and giving them comfortanble access to that talent.
    Prejudging that THIS talent or THAT talent is the talent you NEED
    and that you WILL learn creates the cracks that those who find it
    difficult to succeed in those specific talents will fall through.
    Do we really need more cracks? The task of the teacher is to FIND
    and to encourage talent mor than it is to teach it or something
    like it. I would argue that later when (and if) the student has
    progressed enough to grasp the need to aquire lacking talents is
    the time to teach such talents.

    -henry 

    ---

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 10:55:54 PDT