All I can say now is, studying is a good way to hone your skills for a particular subject and help yourself become knowledgeable of that subject. However, that won't make you smart. It would make you intelligent within the field, but in terms of being quick of thought connecting more dots and being able to see bigger pictures from what you do know by experience, that happens to be intertwined with creativity and the aspect of being smart. If you aren't smart now within the subject with the little you do know, I doubt you'd be "smart" with experience. And, I use "smart" as a comparison with people in the same field, but then again, I'd be unwise to say that is your fate so to speak, because your brain operates differently in that what you see one may have never thought of and that comes from life experiences. So I am speaking more generally and keeping with everything basically operating at a, what I'd consider, balanced, and uniformly equal pace.
However that doesn't mean there are better talents to be had with being rather slow in the subject and digesting the information as our brains operate a bit differently. And, intelligence like music, needs to be molded and practiced with. Sure, your genes and experience help, but these go hand in hand, they don't operate separately of one another.
People like to bring up Feynman as a good example, but Feynman learned his craft in his way. The I.Q. test essentially was useless because like a great composer, his intelligence was melded partly with life experience and genetics, thus giving him his often seen gifted ability for physics and mathematics. So does this come from genetics or experience? I say both, does a good runner obtain such gifts from genetics or practice, does genetics or practice make for a good composer, does genetics or practice make for a good physicist?