I always cringe when I hear someone talk about the talentless artist. I feel there is something inherently wrong with this judgment because who am I to say this is good art and this is bad. Can their ever be a criteria or a measuring stick that artists can compare their work to like a scientist can or an english professer can.

I have always wondered the same question; and still have not found answers. But I still keep drawing, because is just something that I love.

An artist who lets others decide what he or she should make risks to be as good as making art as a parrot is at speaking.

An artist who thinks for him- herself risks to be less social but more genius - functional strangeness displays almost always higher quality, are a lot more interesting, than conformity.

And BTW, an "artist" which does not master the basic artistic skills (I won't tell you which skills these are) have much less freedom to express her- himself and therefore risks making art which gives a skeved and untrue picture of their will, situation and visions.

Ain't that bad or what?

Come on, " Anon ", for the sake of argument, tell us about the basic artistic skills. The other statements you make seem pretty o.k.

Kim

Rebecca, you have captured the very essence of what an artist is when you say you love to draw and keep on drawing anyway! Good for you! That is truly what ART is - just DOING it rather than TALKING about it. It is a physical ACT, it is HANDS-ON, and it has NOTHING to do with TALKING whatsoever. That is an entirely different skill and comes from an entirely different reference place and a different part of the brain. Drawing gets better and better as we practice DOING it. If a person cannot draw, it is because they are not practicing it...and loving it comes through the practice of DOING it not the practice of talking about it.

Making art is for everyone. It is not exclusive and certainly not limited to people who somehow had something drop out of the sky on them, such as "talent" or "genius." Everyone CAN make art. I have taught art for over 20 years and I have never yet found a student who could not LEARN to draw. Everyone CAN...it is a fact. Talent and Genius are words and ideas that began in the Renaissance and they were labels put on people...we have had these ideas which were placed as a burden on humanity ever since that time. Then, in the ENLIGHTENMENT, it was fortified and we are a culture that has clung to the ideas of the enlightenment - 18th century!

How is it that contemporary people are still parroting ideas about ART/ARTISTS that were formulated over 700 years ago? Would we do this in any other discipline? Certainly we would not.

You cannot "measure" a person's intuition and imagination can you? Yet, it is from the intuition and imagination that art comes forth. It is a person who is always asking, "What if..." or "I wonder what would happen if..."
or "How about...."

As a teacher I can tell you that I cannot TEACH you to draw. I can only encourage you and give you my insight into what I see happening in the drawing. The drawing comes from deep inside of the person doing it. It cannot be taught like a math problem can, or a lab project. That is what is so wonderful about making art. It is personal, individual, and no two people will solve the puzzle the same way or have the same outcome.

Making art is a way of life. It is my way of living my life. It is a conscious WAY that a person has chosen to live. It is a way of looking at life and a way of living life. Artists CHOOSE to do what they do, it is not a divine "gift" given by the gods. We can make art out of anything...and that's a topic for another discussion, huh?

Here is a link that might be useful: Lynda Lambert Art Gallery

There are many criteria for determining artistic quality. The problem is that art is made within a context and therefore each cultural context has its own criteria and it would be daft to try to mix match criteria and art. If you put a religious Hindu sculpture of Ganesh up against a Warhol you would probably determine that the sculpture was an attempt at humor. If, however, you view the sculpture from a Hindu cultrual viewpoint the sculpture takes on a whole different meaning and is probably the better work of art because it conveys a religious message where the Warhol is empty and shallow.

There is no all inclusive criteria for viewing art because art is a product of culture and to understand a work of art one must understand the culture it was made in. How can you compare the cave drawings of our most ancient ancestors to the multimedia art of contemporaries like Nam June Paik. There is no way.

As for science, there is no all inclusive method there either. Science always changes. New discoveries about the world change our perceptions. Ideas not possible today will be possible tomorrow. Just because a theory can't be proven now doesn't mean it won't be proven later.

Just because you don't value a certain work of art doesn't mean you won't value it later as well. I remember being a Freshman in college and visiting the Joslyn Art Museum in Omaha. I loved everything from the Impressionists through the Pop Artists because I understood their work and where they were coming from. I did not however enjoy any of the work from the earlier periods or the contemporary work because I did not have the cultural understanding of the context in which they were created. My two favorite types of art now are the African collections, Asian collections and the Contemporary collections in any museum or gallery and in no way can I compare them and determine which collection contains the best work of art.

Yes, art is made within a cultural context. And, it is in looking at the art that we can get a view of the culture from which it has been made. As for Andy Warhol, he gave us a view into what we value as Americans...he used our own media imagery and gave us an inside view of what we like to look at and what we value...yes, empty and shallow would fit. He revealed 'us' to 'us.' He showed us what we value as a culture - think about WHO he did pictures of, and the subject matter of those pictures...and read his diaries for more insight.

Here is a link that might be useful: Lambert Art Gallery

I was not trying to discredit the work of Andy Warhol. He is one of my favorite artists. The point I was trying to make was that to a person looking at art thru the cultural spectacles of a devout hindu before modern western cultural influence his work would pale in comparison to that of a traditional hindi sculptor. However, to the every day 20th or 21st century American Warhol's work probably has much more relevance.

Let me respond positively to this discussion. The input is strong and seems to come from well thought out points of view. Lynda’ statement that art is a way of life is probably the best definition of what an artist is. Carl’s statement that art is defined by its culture is one of the rare truths of art.

Just a couple of points:

Lynda: everyone can and should participate in bringing art into their lives. Teaching everyone the value of this sounds as if it has been a life’s goal. I commend you. I must however question your statement that art is so common that anyone can learn to do it. First of all, there is genius in all fields of knowledge, they lead the way because their skill is uncommon and their vision is beyond the present. The problem with today’s art is we have a “genius” every 15 minutes.

Now comes the harder point, gifted? One has to be gifted to be a genius, but not every gifted artist is a genius. Since Lynda has taught 20 years she must have had students who have an innate talent. Art just seems to flow through them. They just see the world differently. To them the world looks visual. This is a gift. Many students/artists achieve a high level of skill, but never quite make it into this vision.

Lynda’s right, it is through the act of working that we seek this visual world. Does one have to be gifted to be an artist? No. Does one have to be gifted to learn to see visual world? No. Does one have to be gifted to produce the best and enduring art of our culture? Yes.

I noticed in a small book about Balthus the other day. He stated that he did not want to be called an artist, he said he preferred the label craftsman. I have a similar feeling towards the subject. Art transcends our existence. It is self-evident. What is not self-evident is the shroud of words that tie up so many peoples renderings. Look see feel
trust

Hey, a real discussion...nice

Although you have justified the many facets of art and their importance in our lives the original question still stands. Is there such a thing as talent less art? From my perspective the answer is yes, and I say this with one thing in mind :Intent. You can look at the work of Pollock for example and say a child can create a splatter painting but Pollock intended each work to come to fruition that way. On the other hand a mechanic fooling around with welding equipment and spare parts has the ability, though not “trained” or directed by intent, to create a fine metal sculpture. Intention is what separates true art from the happy accidents that seem to happen every now and then, and even if the final product is unintended it is the result of a deliberate attempt.

It seems like it was easier to be/become an artistic genious before post modernism. Might be the reason why so many artists dislike PM - it's another door closed in the face.

there may be talentless 'art' but you will have to squirm mightily to justifty talentless artist, using the word artist denotes an accepted talent for a certain ability so, no you have made no point. if you do not agree with the merits of a particular talent then you do not like a certain
type of depection. Craft is essential to discerning these sorts of obfuscations. Does the bowl hold the soup? can the tines of the fork spear the pickle? it gets more amd more obscure as you go further and further into the myopia of 'art'but I sincerly hope that each of us can and will learn more and more

So is the artistic genius just a myth?
And if so, what is its functionality as a myth in postmodern society? Why has it survived so long? and what set of values does it circulate?

Of course artistic genius isn´t a myth. Evyertime I get involved in dicussions like this I only have to think of Beethoven, Manet, Mozart, Velazquez, Hendrix etc. and then the fog lifts.

yes but what does it serve as a myth. Is it not a reflection as well of a society? Is not the word genius filled with male connotations? is not that just unfair?

Agreed, there´s a lot of mythological hogwash dreamed up about artistic genius, but the neat thing about genius is that it cannot be defined, only observed.

Of course, the myths are the projections of the non-geniuses. And in the fields of arts and sciences there are more males endowed / burdened / blessed / cursed with geniality, than there are females. But generally, there are also more male geeks and nerds, than there are female. It´s neither fair, nor unfair; it´s just the way it is. Whether, under different circumstances more women would emerge as geniuses is a question, that one can only theorize about.

But then again, I´m a man ( in Denmark, where I live Kim is a man´s name ) , so what do I know :-)

there is nothing to be gained from my contribution to this discussion, which is a genuine one, to its great credit. however, as i am vain i shall continue:

early works of the child picasso are comparable in quality in early works of young princes and princesses from the 200 years previous to picasso's birth. princes and princesses, once they reach maturity, tend to have to deal with concerns other than artistic ones and therefore don't really explore this avenue very deeply, unlike the 'gifted' child picasso.

the quality of their drawing, from a technical perspective, stems from the fact that pre-C20 art and artists did not suffer expression over draughtmanship and any child who produced a shapeless orange swirl which he or she claimed, for instance, to be a lion would have felt quickly the ire of his or her guardian and been told that if one wants to draw a lion, one must look at a lion. this they did, as did picasso.

what i believe this shows is that, with real application, anyone can produce art at the highest level. frank, i think your concluding points have considerable merit but what is open to argument is the idea that you yourself identify as an key issue: giftedness. kim cites a list of truly impressive artists and one of the elements that stands out from this list is the sexual bias. now, are we to assume that males simply have a greater inate 'gift' for artistic pursuits or should we take into account socialogical, political, religious etc. factors and say that for the vast majority of time past, men were, and are still to some extent, granted the capacity to extend their 'inate gift'? because if we are to (and how can we fail to?) it brings into question the whole conception that gifted individuals are a product of genetics [as opposed to circumstance].

basically, in a long winded fashion, this is the question, kim's point just above essentially. And lynda's i guess:

the idea that there is some people wot got it and some people wot aint: is it all just a crock of sh*t?

moving on... ;)

this idea of 'genius': my understanding is that it can be correctly traced back to renaissance times, as lynda identifies, but is has it's application to individuals ever been so widespread as has been throughout C20 because i suspect not? and if this is correct, is this a [by]product of our media obsessed age? and moving on further still if this is the case, is not the word virtually redundant now, then (sic)?

***...keep those wagons rolling...***

dubya...

Well, even in pre-historic times, some made stuff and some didn´t...

Just two points for more discussion:

Point One Gifted:

Some people run faster than others, some people are stronger than other, some smarter, some better looking and so on. We all have gifts; it is what we do with them that distinguishes us as superior to the norm. Keep in mind, if the gifted fast runner works as hard as the non-gifted runner, he can’t be beat; he has the gift. Those who argue against artist’s gifts just aren’t facing reality. In my younger days, I taught art to every grade from third through college. I saw a small percentage of each group with the artistic gift. It’s just there, whether they use it or not. It seemed to be more predominant in brighter students, both male and female, but I have worked with students who were almost retarded in I.Q. who produced unusually fine art work with intent. They were aware that their skill was better than that of their peers. The big difference between gifted artists and hard working non-gifted artists is the gifted seem to move art forward, despite the rules. As soon as you establish an artistic truth the gifted bend it and show us it’s not a rule. They make art an illusive target.

Point Two Women in Art: Why more men?

Assuming my year of experience has shown me no lack of gifted women in art, I propose that women as well as men have the opportunity to use or not use their gift. Reaching back in history, women, like blacks and other minorities, had less opportunity to choose to pursue their gift, but it must be pointed out that the Arts (capital A) was one of the early venues available to these groups. Most artist believe the visual arts are best judged by the work not by who produced it.

The question then arises in todays modern society, why less women pursue their gift than men. I have a thought.(just a thought) My observation is that women seem to drastically change their goals when confronted with child birth. Some actresses with successful careers choose to stay home. They have money for nannies, it is a choice. I believe it’s a choice made by instinct not social pressure. (observe Madonna’s changes)
This single moment is very powerful force for change, and it is experienced by the majority of women. The instinct to mother their offspring is probably powerful enough to redirect the goals of enough women to make the differences we observe.

again, i feel forced to beg to differ.

your point about runners appears, in isolation, to have validity but examine it in even slight detail and it starts to look distinctly shaky. michael johnson, for instance, is someone who you might point to as regards his genius-level skill in travelling from a to b at pace. but take the social factors into account and again we are faced with the fact that the vast majority of sprinters in the modern age come from north america. surely if it were the case that some runners are simply 'gifted' then one would expect top-class sprinters to emerge from nationalities all over the planet as the only equipment necessary for top-quality running is a good diet. 'same goes for keynan distance runners. they are clearly world beaters. is this:

1. because by pure chance all the world best distance runners were, in our generation, born within a few cattle fields of each other? or
   
2. because the high altitude in keyna gives these runners a capacity to utilise the oxygen in their blood stream that little bit more efficiently?
   

the answer to this should be clear enough.

now, you might accept the point about the national bias within these fields but still point to the fact that the vast majority of atheletes in this day and age are black, marking out the fact that genetics does play an important role, and in this you would be right. But this doesn't detract from the fact that running in a pursuit with an easily definable quality: fastest = gold, second faster = silver etc.

can this be done with the arts? frank, you mention that during your time as a teacher you 'saw a small percentage of each group with the artistic gift'.

what does that mean? it is so broad as to be completely meaningless. you looked at the work of students a and b and judged that b was far superior to a even though they had put in equal effort. this was just your opinion. i find it greatly amusing that recent archeological discoveries in greece of painted sculpture undermine the whole perception of western art and classisism as we see it. when one stops to consider the fact that even great masters of change like picasso based much of their work and study upon the work of the masters who in turn based their work on the rediscovery of the great works of ancient greece and that fundamental presumptions based upon these works of antiquity are in the process of complete reassessment, it undermines every single preconception any of us might have had about any sphere of the arts. that being the case, how can any of us presume to make judgments as to the 'inherent gifts' possessed of or lacking in given individuals?

history, it would seem, is bunk.

dubya: sitting on the fence as usual.

A few point to your post, dubya:

Even among the kenyan long-distance runners, some run faster than others. Is that a problem?

A lot of great works and ideas are based on misunderstandings historical facts and ideas. Again, is that a problem?

Honestly, I try to meet people and works of art as what they present themselves to be, not what they historically are supposed to be.

not a problem kim. my feeling is that it is simply impossible to make definitive nature about 'artistic genius' one way or the other with so many unknown, untestable variables involved.

i can't stand idly by whilst injustice like this is going on. ;o)

Again, the only categorical statement I find to hold it´s own is that genius can only be observed, not defined.

It’s great to discuss this with informed, intelligent people who love art.

So we don’t stray too far from the subject, “Is there artistic genius?” Let me quickly address my athletic running example.

DUBYA:
You seem to be Gestalt in your thinking. If all differences are environmental/behavioral, I must conclude my argument with one genetic thought. “SHAQ” Now that’s a basketball gift. It’s our diversity that makes us interesting.

MORE IMPORTANT:

Moving on to your more important question, what is it that I “observed” that leads me to conclude a small percentage of all these varied groups taught have some “gift or talent” that other’s don’t. It’ s not drawing or a student’s ability to copy the world they see it. This skill seems to be something most students have the ability to learn, if taught well. But hard work and training can’t make them draw like Toulose-Lautrec. So again, what is it I observed? I think I observed those characteristics that human beings have observed since the beginning of mankind. Certain tribal members were singled out, and became the tribes tool decorators. In modern society they are selected out as designers, artists, etc.because they seem to make better aesthetic choices. In the world of VISUAL arts, these choices evolve around the aesthetic choices involving composition. How the entire piece of work comes together as one visual statement. You can make rules for good composition, but I don’t believe it is teachable. I believe my observation is that the those artist singled out by the tribe represent a group that is admired for their ability to make better aesthetic choices than those who single them out. Society hires decorators, car designers, etc. because we think they make better choices. I observed a consistent small percentage of the various groups taught who made these better choices. I define this as a gift. And I’ll stand by my earlier statements.

“One has to be gifted to be a genius, but not every gifted artist is a genius.”

“Does one have to be gifted to be an artist? No. Does one have to be gifted to see visual world? No. Does one have to be gifted to produce the best and enduring art of our culture? Yes.”

Do men possess an abundance of "genuis" compared to women? What if genius is more a manifestation of aggression, strength, dissemblance and suppression than one of intellect, talent and skill?

What is the criteria for determining which endeavors are worthy of pursuit and approbation and which participants get to pursue their talents? As others state, this is culturally subjective and nurtured. Even the sense of aesthetics we ascribe to is determined by our cultural norms, no matter how independent we think we are of influence. This is so much the case that someone who stands in total opposition to them in the current era is regarded as "nuts", in times past as demonically possessed, witches, heretics and blasphemers (and we know their fate).

Do we know the gender or race of the cave painters, or the creators of the Paleolithic Venus Figurines? No, but the repeated presumption has been that the creators must be male (most often depicted as white) with many fine explanations as to why. All conjectures ride on a recorded history in which the greater opportunity and patronage to create "significant" art had been relegated to males. Not surprisingly, they were also the group privileged to write the histories, control the commerce, the governments, write the laws and dominate religions. In other words, determine culture. As we say, history is written by the victors and if they are to validate their actions, they need to inflate their accomplishments while diminishing and controlling others.

Records of women's contributions to this culture went the way of Sappho's poetry with all but small remnents destroyed, or of the paintings of Judith Leyster and Maria Robusti (La Tintoretta) subliminated under male signatures, and the miniatures of Lavinia Teerling/Teerline/Teerlinc undocumented, the identity appropriated. The women themselves, with rare exceptions, were appropriated, their very life not their own, their personhood and their creations chattel of their fathers or husbands, their creativity channeled to meet the dictates of a male concept of inherent female value. How many geniuses were pressed into service to make a comfortable home for the family and "dissuaded" from frivolous pursuit of their own interest? And once one has adopted a mindset that anyone/everyone of a particular group is inherently inferior, incapable of genius, what effort will be made to promote or preserve whatever they may produce?

The dominant culture will determine what is of value and dispense with all that doesn't conform to their concepts of the same -- think Taliban and Bamiyan Buddhas.

Could artistic Genius be hereditary?
It has been my observation that this may be true.
I am attending OCAD (Ontario College of Art and Design) in Toronto Canada. I have been asking other young artists about their parents, and grandparents, and their artistic background. My findings have been that around 75% of the youth have close relatives that are talented in art as well.
Personally both my sister and I are gifted in art and I believe that this skill/talent comes from my Grandmother (on my father's side) She is amazing and has developed her skill and creates masterful works.
I have searched for books or even websites with information that pertains to this and have found none.
This may be due to the lack of recorded artists because the men were only given the opportunity to develop their artistic skill. Therefor limiting the know people with artistic skill to at least half of what it really is.

Does anyone know of a study done on this?
If not maybe this would be a good thesis for me to work on! :)

Just wanted to say my 2 cents on the location of the runner thing. Think about food, and water sources etc. Nutrition that other countries lack which hinders their development. Not to mention the money that they lack. This is why most of the runners come from 1st world countries. I guarantee that there are many undiscovered artists, runners etc. out there. They haven’t even discovered their talent or they don’t have the recourses to harness it.

I think the need for genius to explain the otherwise unexplainable is a function of language. There is genius in all endeavors. A lack of skill can make one persons average
talent into a genius compared with anothers. I think the problem with this term is the subjective hidden need for persons involved with creative expression to be loved, appreciated, respected and even worshipped. Of course no one would admit it but there are too many buried egos trying to express a correctness of attitude, or beatitude out here, do artists believe that their western world materialism is irrelevant to there own needs. Is denial a cathartic expression? Well I have one foot nailed to the floor. Do these questions satisfy any of our needs? I hope so. At least I can try to amuse some of you all with my apparant lack of self-control or formal intellectual acumen.

When we speak of genius in art, we are not talking about people who have great technical skill. There are people who can reproduce what they see very well, but about whom nobody gives a darn (as evidenced by all those paintings that come with the frames you buy at Wal-Mart). And we are not talking about people who make a good living from art or are famous from their art, because there are people who are famous artists and live well off of art who are in no way to be considered geniuses (Bob Ross comes to mind, or Thomas Kincaid). So what puts the rift between Thomas Kincaid and Picasso?
What we are wondering about is an ability to consistently create works of art with which humanity can relate on a general level, despite their subject matter, and the relationship that these works have on the period in which they are being created. For example, Giotto was great because we consider him with the likes of Cimabue. In all periods of art history, the geniuses are singled out because they break with tradition, not because they are exceptionally good at representation. Think of Van Gogh, Picasso, Warhol...all considered geniuses because they broke with tradition.
In regards to no-talent hacks, they are those who suck but won't admit it, and via persistence or connections, and not via talent, make it into their chosen field.

Here is a link that might be useful: C. McVay's website

sheesh, there has been really great dialog going on here, anyway..."artistic genius" vs "no talent" is truly all in the eye of the beholder, what some people see as genius others see as no talent, it just seems to be the way it is...the chaos factor weaving its way threw opinion and even the gods are not safe from it...take armerican indian art, from what i have noticed the "main stream" art world views it as no talent, but i see it, especially enoch kelly haney or tiger, as genius...or take for example me and my step-dad, he is more of a realist in the way he paints or draws up a picture and the end results truly takes my breath away, me i'm more into an abstract kinda way...he does have more natural talent than i do, but i have more vison than he does so i guess it kinda balances out, so who's to say who is an artistic genius and who's the one with no talent...again, opinion i guess

I love this forum!
Huge amounts of great information!
Thank-you everybody!

i am wondering if it is ok to just be good? i have this burning desire to be the best ever...but i also think my heart is setting me up for failure. is it ever ok to settle for just plain good?? i want to soemtimes...but my skill is a jealous god, as is my fragile ego.

Interesting thread.