• Previous message: KSchiavo00: "Re: Aboriginal Art Links"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> I tell my students (I even put it in the syllabus) that talent
> is much less important than WORK and DESIRE.

Since I think talent is something that can be developed, I will agree that
PASSION must be the predecessor. My question is....do we have anyone here
that follows sports at all? Is there not among many young athletes
satisfaction that comes AFTER having done something well, and does not
desire directly increase proportionately to "signs" that talent is in fact
developing?

In a smaller school system where sports and sports recognition seems to be
everything, I definitely see students pumped up and excited around time that
the regional student art show comes up. A time for them to anticipate how
their works will do in the judging. Obvious disappointment when the
recognition they had hoped for comes up short. Yet...when they see the
other winners, for the most part...they very quietly nod their heads in
silent agreement.

I can almost see them saying to themselves they will try harder next year.
They have made it a goal to have their work represented, and gain
recognition. For those peers that did receive awards, I find support and
accolaide. The only ones that do not receive praise among the students
themselves is when a peer they know put forth only a mediocre half-effort,
and YET received some award. That tends to cheapen their efforts.

So...the real issue as I see it is, how do we so change human nature so as
to wholly enjoy something that requires NO talent, for there exists
something deep in us that is moved by the heroics of taking on unimaginable
odds and adversity. To suggest talent has no place in the arts is to make
human beings something other than they are.

I think that many wish to say talent is unnecessary is a noble quest. In
reality, they want everyone to enjoy art. Why not simply recognize that
while everyone can dribble a bastketball, try to go out for the sport in
school,etc., NOT EVERYONE will make an NBA team one day. We don't have to
minimilize talent or the good fortunes of nature's gene pool so that others
feel good about dribbling a basketball. If anything, finding out just how
difficult basketball can be assists us in understanding just how great
"GREAT" is in players like Jordan, Shaq, Bryant...etc; our mouths drop down
for a reason. By the same token, there is nothing ill-noble about
preparing generations to be art "appreciators"...that is, capable of
tinkering around with art for fun...for relaxation, without emphasizing they
are somehow less a good person than they are for lacking in talent. Why not
teach them some of the difficulties of producing good art, and to appreciate
what it would take to make good art, so that they are prepared to appreciate
one day those that indeed have made art their life's passion?

You can still leave open the pluralism of allowing them to decide what the
definition of "good" art will ultimately be. Most seem to have a sense of
that anyway. I bridge that difficulty by acknowledging philosophies or
"movements" of art making, and that each one has their shining stars.
Modernism has its champions, Dadaism, Expressionism, and Realism. Within
each movement are priniciples and proponents/adherents of those principles.
Work has to be judged successful in attaining goals within their separate
disciplines. If work does such...we can say the artist has developed
talents.
peace,

Larry Seiler

---

• Next message: Larry Seiler: "Re: Everyone can draw..."
• Previous message: KSchiavo00: "Re: Aboriginal Art Links"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 09:08:52 PDT