Is talent born or created with hard work and practice

[harryupbabble]

as a slacker, i have issues with hard work

for example, to lose weight, i don't want to spend time exercising
it's easier to just eat less, if the will is there, and here... it is
new year's resolution
20 pounds to lose by may or even april
save money on food, save knee joints too

speaking of no work or practice or study and instead only play...
speed scrabble
gotta go
ciao

[enCiphered]

to lose weight, i don't want to spend time exercising
it's easier to just eat less, if the will is there, and here... it is

Yeah, but without training, you look like a human floor mop that has come to life.
So, get off your lazy butt and get to the gym, you noodle-armed weakling! If you keep lounging around, you'll soon be as soft as a marshmallow!

[Dirtgrain]

Aesthetically, talent is just when someone else likes your stuff. It is innate in the sense that there has to be someone else born who will like your stuff. The more people who like it, the more we'll hear about how talented you are.

Going beyond that simplistic, but unarguable point, we can bring in physical skill, intellectual skill, ability to redefine the limits and create something never made before. There probably is something that some might be born without that prevents them from having identifiable talent with these things--and no amount of hard work can compensate. Some seen naturally inclined to reach excellence with these skills, but practice still improves them, no matter their baseline. Some are less bound, physically and intellectually, getting to places others cannot--this is likely innate. As for creating something new, anyone can do that--but only some can do it in a way that is appreciated, which goes back to what I said about aesthetic talent.

[VOODOO U]

Aesthetically, talent is just when someone else likes your stuff. It is innate in the sense that there has to be someone else born who will like your stuff. The more people who like it, the more we'll hear about how talented you are.

Gangsta rappers are talented? On another interesting note, nature does have it's own sense of equilibrium so that could be a factor in individual human cells having "gifts".
So if your work reaches millions it's because it had to for the sake of equilibrium.
That may fail to gel logically because what do boy bands have anything to do with equilibrium?
But that's akin to a bug asking what's the point of big gigantic trees?
The bigger picture may not be grasped with limited intelligence.
And all of you poor souls are very limited in intelligence. Nature made you dumb. Can't imagine what that must feel like.

[vurt]

Aesthetically, talent is just when someone else likes your stuff. It is innate in the sense that there has to be someone else born who will like your stuff. The more people who like it, the more we'll hear about how talented you are.

Gangsta rappers are talented?

some, yes.
dr dre for example. you may not like his productions, but he's very talented.
eminem, lyrical talent as well as rapping. some clever stuff.
jay z business genius.
snoop...

im sure someone more well versed in rap, will know many more.

[VOODOO U]

some, yes.
dr dre for example. you may not like his productions, but he's very talented.
eminem, lyrical talent as well as rapping. some clever stuff.
jay z business genius.
snoop...

None of that compares to Rappin' Duke.
But the point is anyone being liked for their art doesn't make them talented.
I consider myself very talented with music production and that opinion will remain whether or not I get outside support.

[jancivil]

"Aesthetically, talent is just when someone else likes your stuff."
"Someone else" may have nothing at all by which to base what talent is. People liking something as an argument is going to fail logically once it's amplified to 'this many people like it/that many people hate it' as the informal fallacy 'argumentum ad populum'. " Regarding the assertion "someone's" enjoyment is our rule of thumb, that assessment may be hard to defend or just mistaken. Perhaps someone has performed something our arbiter of talent is just entirely familiar with, showing a comfort in familiarity and upon examination we find nothing more as an argument for it.

Conversely, we immediately saw a funny sort of agreement: someone doesn't like "gangsta rap" so it must be that those people cannot be talented. No, liking something or not does not determine anything about talent, if we start respecting that as a truism we may as well not talk about it, everything is subjective now, and we're never going to have a definition.
The level of accomplishment, as proceeding from the ease of and/or the aptitude for the work that makes accomplishment a thing are our signs of talent. If a child does something we didn't expect to happen so early we'll say 'talented'. We may not be able to see it for some years, with some it may be rather latent...

[jancivil]

"that unarguable point" - inarguable
I just argued it. Here's another form of that argument:

"But what will the general public think about it?"
"The 'general public' voted for Hitler and likes Coldplay."

[VOODOO U]

liking something or not does not determine anything about talent, if we start respecting that as a truism we may as well not talk about it, everything is subjective now, and we're never going to have a definition.

Please. KVRists are not into being set free from the truth, they're about getting high from bickering.

[Dirtgrain]

"Aesthetically, talent is just when someone else likes your stuff."
"Someone else" may have nothing at all by which to base what talent is.

The only thing by which talent, aesthetically, can be determined is someone else's opinion. If they like a piece and think it good, aesthetically, they think or say, "Oh, I like that. That artist is [aesthetically] talented." There is no other way to determine if something aesthetically shows talent. You can't show me one. And everyone has all they need for a basis of such determination, to their own preference and liking. You saying that they might not is an unsupported claim that leads nowhere, even if you squint your eyes and look hard.

People liking something as an argument is going to fail logically once it's amplified to 'this many people like it/that many people hate it' as the informal fallacy 'argumentum ad populum'.

This is an improper application of the concept of argumentum ad populum. It should only be applied to a logical fallacy in an argument about something that can be factually true. One person saying, "Mike is talented [aesthetically], and another person saying, "Mike is not talented," is not an argument--it is only the stating of opinions, which is all there is when it comes deciding if someone is talented aesthetically. There is nothing else to it--it has not been shown in this thread.

" Regarding the assertion "someone's" enjoyment is our rule of thumb, that assessment may be hard to defend or just mistaken. Perhaps someone has performed something our arbiter of talent is just entirely familiar with, showing a comfort in familiarity and upon examination we find nothing more as an argument for it.

There is no defending opinion on what someone likes or does not like and it can't be mistaken--only possibly changed from moment to moment.

Conversely, we immediately saw a funny sort of agreement: someone doesn't like "gangsta rap" so it must be that those people cannot be talented. No, liking something or not does not determine anything about talent

I addressed that earlier in this post.

if we start respecting that as a truism we may as well not talk about it, everything is subjective now, and we're never going to have a definition.

I've given a definition; it's just that there isn't any other one. It is subjective. If you dare try to bring some "objective" criteria as to what makes something reveal talent, aesthetically, apart from other types of talent as I described in my post before (physical skill, intellectual skill, ability), then I will dare to point out that all of the criteria, when it comes to aesthetics, are based on individual, subjective likes and dislikes. Two or more may find they have the same criteria and state that they have identified standards, but that changes nothing.

The level of accomplishment,

As determined by?

as proceeding from the ease of and/or the aptitude for the work that makes accomplishment a thing are our signs of talent.

This goes to the other types of talent I mentioned.

If a child does something we didn't expect to happen so early we'll say 'talented'. We may not be able to see it for some years, with some it may be rather latent...

The unexpected in a musical piece or performance no doubt has led some people to declare talent in some cases.

"that unarguable point" - inarguable
I just argued it. Here's another form of that argument:

"But what will the general public think about it?"
"The 'general public' voted for Hitler and likes Coldplay."

You made an unsupported claim and misapplied a label of a logical fallacy. Look at you now.

[Dirtgrain]

del

[Michael L]

The only thing by which talent can be determined is someone else's opinion.

You are confusing talent with personal preference.

Talent is a real word.
Talent is defined as an above average ability.
Talent is nowhere defined as someone's opinion.

An ability can be observed and measured, and the average can be measured, both quantitatively (eg numbers), and qualitatively (eg facts). So talent has a reality that can be factually observed (eg objectively) and described mathematically.

Critics do it all the time to justify their judgements, and to educate the public. Examples abound, from Rick Beato's 'What Makes This Song Great' to Leonard Bernstein's famous lectures.

And there's so many types of talent. What is the name for producer/songwriter DJ Shadow's talent that enabled him to work so hard and make so many good musical decisions to create Endtroducing in 1996 and Action Adventure last month ? ? ?

[Dirtgrain]

Talent is defined as an above average ability.

Above average is defined by opinion.

[Dirtgrain]

An ability can be observed and measured

. . . per the claimed "objective" standards based on opinion. This I restrict to the concept of deciding if something is aesthetically pleasing or not--and then assigning the concept of talent, or the lack thereof, to the artist.

You can measure Joe Satriani's physical skill, his skill in using modes and scales (tied to his intellect) and physical guitar techniques. When I was a young guitar player, I bought his albums in order to play along and to learn from him, and I recognize his physical talent. But aesthetically, I don't like his music. He doesn't have the aesthetic talent to create music that I like, and that is solely based on my opinion.

So talent has a reality that can be factually observed (eg objectively) and described mathematically.

Not when it comes to determining if something is aesthetically good or bad.

Critics do it all the time to justify their judgements, and to educate the public. Examples abound, from Rick Beato's 'What Makes This Song Great' to Leonard Bernstein's famous lectures.

I've addressed this in my previous post. When it comes to aesthetics, it's all based on opinion.

And there's so many types of talent. What is the name for producer/songwriter DJ Shadow's talent that enabled him to work so hard and make so many good musical decisions to create Endtroducing in 1996 and Action Adventure last month ? ? ?

Regarding if it sounds good or not, to an individual, it is aesthetic talent.

[Dirtgrain]

The only thing by which talent can be determined is someone else's opinion.

Also, you intentionally misquoted me?