Plan for Anthony "Turtle" Pham

Submit your own resources!

Jim McLuckie   (May 18, 2002 at 04:54 GMT)

I don't think being artistic is something you learn...I think it's something people already possess when they're born. It's only a matter of bring out that talent as you grow up. There are more than one way to be artistic, though...writing, drawing, painting, molding, music. Would anyone else agree?

DavidRM   (May 18, 2002 at 18:42 GMT)

I agree with Anthony: Art skills can be learned.

Insisting that art skills are an innate talent that cannot be learned is akin to stating that riding a bicycle can't be learned. It's also very disempowering. People assume that because they can't do something great the first time they try, that they must have no talent for it and give up.

Sure, some people can ride a bicycle right away (my son), but other struggle for weeks (me) (I can still outskate him, though ;-) ). But differing levels of basic ability can be overcome with proper instruction and training--and practice.

Everything improves with practice, even creativity. It's the practice, I think--especially voluntary practice that derives from a passion to learn--that separates the truly good from the merely competent. Maybe not right away, but over the long term, the one who strives to improve, will.

-David
Samu Games

Anthony Pham   (May 18, 2002 at 19:06 GMT)

I can tell you for certain that I didn't know how to draw at all right after I was born. In fact, most of my current artistic ability was attained in the last two years. Before that I was drawing little more than glorified stick figures.

The way I'm seeing your argument is that a child will already know how draw like Michaelangelo as soon he is taught how to hold and put a pencil to paper. This isn't so. Even the masters went through training periods where they were little more than learners. What made them so good is that they had no trouble seeing in the particular way that allows artists to render the world accurately.

The brain doesn't see the world the way the world is. If we did see all the color and everything out eyes saw at once, we'd be overwhelmed by the information. Instead the brain processes the visual information in to useable classifications. If the brain percieves a shape that looks like an identifyable object, then it classies it as that object, and that's what it sends to the conscious mind. This the reason optical illusions work and especially those foreground background illusions. One example is the famous two-heads/vase illusion. Rarely anyone can see both objects at the same time. Artists will have little trouble alternating between either object (face or vase), but I have a feeling the masters could just see both at the same time, or simply saw them as outlines.

Now, if that means that those who can not see that way, simply can not be draw, this is not true. The brain can be trained to do many things, seeing a different way isn't that much different from riding a bike. Going back to the masters, I said before they had the ability to see the world as it was, making it much easier for them to draw it. But, what about their alternate forms of art such as cubism and later more abstract works? Unless they were insane, they weren't seeing such strange shapes in real life, so they had to learn to see in that style, to interpret visual information in that way. Stepping back to basic skills, if it is possible to learn to see in a new style, then it may very much be possible to learn to see correctly.

Most of my information and argument stems from Betty Edward's "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", a very good (and popular in the art world) book that compiles her extensive research on drawing ability, and the process of learning how to draw, or see.

Mike Nelson   (May 18, 2002 at 19:26 GMT)

I agree with Anthony also. Being artistic is not something that you are just born with and cannot be learned. The most artistic artists are simply the ones that put the most time into developing their artistic skill.

Usually, it is the people that watch great artists do what they do so easily that say, "I can never do that. These artists must have some inborn talent that I simply don't have and never will." It seems like an easy way of avoiding the possible embarrassment of trying it and ending up not being as good at it as they are.

But it's really like anything else in this world, you get back what you put into it. The more time you work at it the better you get at it. Anyone and everyone has the same potential of excelling at it.

Habib Karpal   (May 18, 2002 at 19:55 GMT)

There are two types of people, and ones in between. There are logical people, like mathematicians, who use the left side of their brain, and creative people, who use the right side. Artists are almost always right or both sided.

I've taken a few tests, and been assessed as being both-sided. It's sort of rare, but it shows because I'm a good writer and artist, but I also have an ability to do math quite well. I learned almost all the web programming languages I know in about the space of two weeks.

Most of us are one or the other, but occasionally there are 'both' minded people. They're not necessarily smarter than others, but usually are more 'balanced' as far as being artistic or mathematical goes.

So in a sense, you have to be born with it, but that doesn't mean you'll be a master of whatever it is you're good at. Basically it just means that you can learn it easier or faster than other people. Keyword: learn. Not even Albert Einstein was born with natural mathematical talent.

(Einstein also failed his writing and art classes in school...)
Edited on May 18, 2002 20:02 GMT

Jim McLuckie   (May 19, 2002 at 04:59 GMT)

There's a difference between learning and developing...when you learn, you're creating knowledge of something that wasn't previously there. And when you're developing, you're taking what was there and making it grow. Steve hit it a bit closer when he talked about the two halves of the brain.

Not everyone is an artist/artistic, and I don't think anyone can BE an artist. Art goes beyond pen and paper, paint and canvas, musical instruments...it's how you see the world. Sure, anyone can write a story, but not everyone can write a good story...anyone can paint a painting, but not everyone can paint a good painting. Artists can. And before everyone jumps down my throat with "who's to say what's bad and what's good," if there weren't a difference, anyone who writes can be a professional writer...and everyone isn't.

Flame on!

Anthony Pham   (May 19, 2002 at 09:05 GMT)

Heh, don't worry. Everyone in this discussion is pretty reasonable. No flames in this plan. :)

Admittedly, to blaze the path into new forms of art talent is definitely needed. However, much of art lies within the composition of the image. Much of these elements of composition and design have been studied through examining the works of previous masters. These days, if someone is dedicated enough, he or she can study these elements, and through meticulous construction design something that looks pleasing. I think this is art just as much as someone innately knowing where to put colors and line. Not only that, someone who constantly practices these elements of design will slowly find them much more natural, eventually developing those skills to the point where they are very much a true latent artist.

But yes, not everyone is an artist, whether they just wish to seek other skills, are too lazy to learn, or simply from lack of time to learn the skills. But, it is my belief that everyone has the ability to learn to draw, or see in the way drawing requires.

I think the confusion here is that I didn't clarify my argument. I believe that art is a learnable skill. Although it is very true that certain people are born with the good eyes for art, however I believe that this ability can be learned even if it is not there to start with. The main problem seems to stem from deciding whether or not art is something that is developed or learned. From my own experience, becoming an artist has been a very long and hard learning experience. Every day I draw I come out with some new way to see the world, sometimes it's so overwhelming that I have to sit back and take a look around at all the beautiful details that I've been missing in the world.

Beyond that, my opinion is that there are no developed skills. Perhaps you could explain why you think art is a developed skill?

Besides the ability to see properly, there is knowing how to place what you see down on paper using whatever tools you have. This is the second part of art which is definitely a learned skill. Those two ideas come together to form the composition, the thing that transcends the medium, yet it is another learned skill.

Jim McLuckie   (May 19, 2002 at 18:38 GMT)

crap, sorry
Edited on May 19, 2002 19:44 GMT

Jim McLuckie   (May 19, 2002 at 18:38 GMT)

stupid webbrowser said it couldn't post...
Edited on May 19, 2002 19:44 GMT

Jim McLuckie   (May 19, 2002 at 18:39 GMT)

My reasoning goes a bit beyond just artistic ability. I believe that everyone is born with a number of traits; traits that can be developed but not learned. Pre-destiny if you will. Throughout life we either develop these skills or let them sit dormant.

With your theory, everyone could in a sense be the same with the "right amount of practice and determination." I don't believe this is true...sure, we're all taught that we can be anything we put our mind to, but is this really true? Look back at your life and look for patterns...they're there if you can remember good enough. How many people have said you're a good writer? A good leader? Have the knack for fixing things?

I'll use myself as an example...through my life, I was always a leader and never the follower. I always had the plan or the idea, and people would follow. I've had very good talent in music (starting with the clarinet in 2nd grade...I was the youngest kid in advanced band; our director was 'famous' in the area, which gives the band a lot of credibility). I've enjoyed taking things apart and putting them together...I've fixed many a things that other people have been unable to fix.

I'm not outright saying that I'm special, I'm more or less saying that these are things you can't learn. Do you think all the good leaders in the past took a class on how to lead people? Read books? I don't think so...they've had the knack to lead people. Have you ever heard of the term "a natural," as in "you're a natural at ______."? This phrase supports my theory. It's not just a compliment.

So, coming full circle, I believe artistic talent is given at birth and developed through life...genetics, heredity, whatever. There's not really a way to prove me wrong with your argument, because how do you know that all these people who have become a good artist didn't already have the talent, just undeveloped? Food for thought...

EDIT: A little addition as I was thinking...a story. When I was in 6th grade or so (at that point I hadn't been playing clarinet...I believe the summer between 6th and 7th I got my guitar) my friend was in band playing trumpet. He was a beginner, never played before. After school he was practicing Mary Had a Little Lamb (simple song, yes) and couldn't really get it. I picked it up and played it almost perfectly my 2nd try..I never played a trumpet before, and it's not that easy either.

Later on in high school, that same friend got a bass guitar, and I was teaching him it, but he couldn't get it either. I would later form a band with a friend, and his friend would hang out at our practices. Eventually we decided that he should play bass before; he had never played an instrument in his life (I'm almost positive). He picked up the bass, and after a few "practice sessions" he was able to play along with us on a few songs. Between practices, he wouldn't have a bass to practice on, so he would have to wait for the next practice to play. He was definitely a natural.
Edited on May 19, 2002 19:49 GMT

Anthony Pham   (May 19, 2002 at 22:16 GMT)

It seems you're getting a bit in to overall beliefs about the way the universe works. I'm a bit of an existentialist myself.

I agree, people are very much predisposed to doing certain things, even liking certain things. However, that doesn't mean that person is only locked in to that. Over the course of a human lifespan, we get exposed to things, people, new ideas, that probably never existed anywhere nearby for us to get predisposed to. Depending on the personality someone might actually take up these new skills.

Social skills, like leadership come from being social. I believe Martin Luther King was a pasteur at a church, certainly a respected position that dealt with a lot of people. I think his father was one as well, all this contact with people, especially amongst the tight knit families of those times would have trained him, over time, to deal with people, thus making him a better leader. I don't think he could be predetermined to be able to be social and lead people, but rather, he could be predisposed to learn social skills, like language, body language, and how not to be shy. Whether this is through genes, left side brain dominance, some higher power, or simply the way the universe works. However, it doesn't mean that he could just hold meaningful conversations a year after he was born. Then there's the

The statement, "you're a natural at..." really just reflects the fact that people are predisposed to doing certain things, and people take notice. However, I don't think that because someone was better at the bass guitar than the trumpet, that he was predetermined to play the bass guiter. I believe he was predisposed to appreciate music, or the rythms and melodies of sound that sound appealing, and to like the kinds of motions and interaction needed to play the bass guitar. I have a feeling he might do just as well playing any other intruments that you can interact similarly with, like a guitar, etc... Just as I just couldn't get in to the saxaphone when I tried playing, I didn't like the way my fingers had to move all over the keys, but I picked up valve instruments quite easy since I could concentrate on the notes and sound, rather than where to place my fingers. I say valve instruments because I can play all instruments that use valves quite well, and not just the baritone that I first played.

Back to drawing, even if someone is not predisposed to have the abilities required to draw, in the off chance that someone without such abilities wanted to take up drawing or an art, it doesn't mean that he could never reach a master level, it just means it would take much longer. True, though, that the people who did have the innate ability to see and move in the way drawing needs will always be one step ahead of someone who doesn't have the innate ability, that is only provided they actually keep up with practice, and that someone without that ability doesn't practice harder than the rest.

Mike Nelson   (May 20, 2002 at 15:00 GMT)

Anthony,
I just checked out the gallery on your website. The improvment of from some of the people is phenomenal. Very cool.

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved