- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
What type of art do you believe requires the most talent?
Loren Booda said:What type of art do you believe requires the most talent?
:rofl:"He can probably sell snow to the Eskimos," said Det. Plowman.
Generally a person only preforms a few roles at most in creating an opera. The talent involved is spread over several persons and analyzing it we would probably wind up breaking it down into its constituent parts again.humanino said:In principle, opera combines most classical arts : music, dancing, theatre, even poetry or painting for instance can be included. Thus is one would restrict to this category, it would appear in some sense, opera (of a generalized form) could be considered "perfect".
Loren Booda said:What type of art do you believe requires the most talent?
DaveC426913 said:That would require having some success criteria by which to compare them.
Who is to say how much talent is required to make the perfect two-sticks-nailed-together-to-give-to-your-mom as opposed to just any two-sticks-nailed-together-to-give-to-your-mom?
breathing, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting and smelling.Loren Booda said:What type of art do you believe requires the most talent?
Loren Booda said:What type of art do you believe requires the most talent?
drizzle said:IMO...calligraphy,especially Chinese [& Japanese], Indian, Persian [& arabic] calligraphy
Jarle said:I think all posts here should start with IMO.
I think there is no limit to the talent one can have in any type of art. And how do you compare talents in different fields of art? The one that has the strongest aesthetic appeal? In that case it is heavily dependent on the individual observers taste.
TheStatutoryApe said:The OP asks which you believe requires the most talent. In such a case I think we could start thinning the field by removing any art form that could be done by anyone since it obviously does not actually require any talent at all.
How does this matter? How could one judge the talent of any when it comes to different forms of art? The aesthetics of the results might an indicator.TheStatutoryApe said:And aside from arguing what constitutes art aesthetics really hasn't much to do with the level of talent required. We are not asking who is the most talented.
You are right about many forms of art here but there are types of art where the average person would have no idea where to begin let alone actually be capable of creating anything.Jarle said:Any art can be done with any level of talent. The quality will be proportionate however.
Again. Not talking about the talent of individuals but the required talent of any particular artistic field. The most talented artist in the world may simply draw on paper with pencil. I can do the same but I am no master. But say the second most talented artist in the world is a stone sculptor. Even though I have read a book on how to sculpt stone I would hardly know where to begin. To even start requires far more talent than drawing a stick figure.Jarle said:How does this matter? How could one judge the talent of any when it comes to different forms of art? The aesthetics of the results might an indicator.
TheStatutoryApe said:You are right about many forms of art here but there are types of art where the average person would have no idea where to begin let alone actually be capable of creating anything.
Again. Not talking about the talent of individuals but the required talent of any particular artistic field. The most talented artist in the world may simply draw on paper with pencil. I can do the same but I am no master. But say the second most talented artist in the world is a stone sculptor. Even though I have read a book on how to sculpt stone I would hardly know where to begin. To even start requires far more talent than drawing a stick figure.
TheStatutoryApe said:Again. Not talking about the talent of individuals but the required talent of any particular artistic field. The most talented artist in the world may simply draw on paper with pencil. I can do the same but I am no master. But say the second most talented artist in the world is a stone sculptor. Even though I have read a book on how to sculpt stone I would hardly know where to begin. To even start requires far more talent than drawing a stick figure.
I'm a lapsed artist. I have done drawing, ceramic sculpture, painting, poetry, short story writing, and photography. I also used to work in an art supply store. I actually do have a book on wood and stone sculpture and have made attempts at both. I have generally found that subtractive art takes a rather different and more demanding sort of perception than additive. I can sculpt ceramic fairly well. Wood took a bit of work and I had major issues trying to figure out how to deal with the grain and knots in the wood. Stone is quite unyielding and takes lots of patience and close attention. I never got even halfway done with the small piece of stone I tried working on.Sorry! said:Drawing well is harder than sculpting I find... and I've done both and studied both hmmm.
This is what I mean. If a nonartist can make a reasonable attempt at working a particular medium it probably does not require as much talent. The difference between drawing with pencils and drawing with charcoals. Painting with water colours and painting in oils. Or even singing in a thrash punk band versus singing in an acapella group. I am not denigrating the talent of water colour artists or punk singers (I enjoy them myself) only realizing the difference in work and talent involved in the different mediums.Jarle said:Still, you must admit there is no definite line that differentiates an artist from a non-artist when doing art. I would say that any person that unfold ones creativity is an artist to some degree; may it be through painting, writing or anything.
I love bagpipes. I even have The Scottish Rogues playing The Clumsy Lover as a ring tone on my phone. :-)DaveC426913 said:Surely the art that requires the most talent will manifest itself as the art that is most performed poorly (i.e. so many attempt yet so few succeed).
So with that logic, perhaps the art form requiring the most talent is ... bagpipes?
Sorry! said:So someone who can draw isn't as talented as an artist who can paint...
DaveC426913 said:Surely the art that requires the most talent will manifest itself as the art that is most performed poorly (i.e. so many attempt yet so few succeed).
So with that logic, perhaps the art form requiring the most talent is ... bagpipes?
JasonRox said:Highest art is bringing an art to another level.
Aristotle, Picasso, Copernicus, etc...
As do I. I wuz just goin' with the flow...TheStatutoryApe said:I love bagpipes.
Phrak said:I really can't speek for anyone else (what is art?, what is talent), but personally and currently the most captivating artists for me, in plural, are those who have constructed and add to this forum.
The definition of "talent" in regards to art can vary, but it generally refers to a natural ability or skill in creating art. This can include technical skills, creativity, and a unique perspective.
This is a subjective question as different types of art require different skills and talents. Some may argue that realistic drawing or painting requires the most talent, while others may argue that abstract or conceptual art requires a different type of talent.
While some people may have a natural inclination towards a certain type of art, talent can also be developed through practice, dedication, and learning from others. However, it is important to recognize that everyone's artistic journey and abilities are unique.
No, talent is not the only factor in creating successful art. Other factors such as hard work, dedication, experimentation, and a strong concept or message can also contribute to the success of a piece of art.
Improving talent in a specific type of art requires practice, studying and learning from other artists, experimenting with different techniques and styles, and continuously challenging oneself to grow and improve. It is also important to have a strong passion and dedication for the art form.