What type of art do you believe requires the most talent?
Drawing real-to-life forms with full value.
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?
2) http://www.vancouversun.com/Smooth+criminal+preyed+hotels/2043574/story.html" [Broken]I think that require the most effort beyond selling products
or recent hoax ran by the balloon family
4) Making/Writing movies
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".
However, it is of course a matter of taste, and russ has a very relevant point : sensibility. Thus, commenting on one of his students dropping off for poetry, Hilbert remarked "I never thought he had enough imagination for mathematics".
IMO...calligraphy,especially Chinese [& Japanese], Indian, Persian [& arabic] calligraphy
I think truly good writing is a high art.
Architecture can be an amazing art as well.
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.
I was thinking perhaps orchestral composition though.
As far as 2-D art goes here are my thoughts:
Hyperrealism - (think Richard Estes, Chuck Close (pre 1988), etc) mainly due to the complete attention to detail and the minutia with which they are concerned.
I really have a lot of respect and admiration for Chuck Close- I have been a fan ever since high school. I really appreciate his work after his accident which paralyzed him but he continued to paint and work after the accident. I think his post-accident work is quite interesting and is always pushing the boundaries.
Now if you make that three sticks, (to the uneducated) you get an A and you can start with the art of reading.
Ever tried making a photo realistic airbrush work?
breathing, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting and smelling.
All of them.
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.
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.
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.
About 20 years ago, I worked on a fish processing ship in the Bering Sea. Most of the workers were college students, like me. Two of my coworkers had this same exact argument.
One said: poetry is the highest art, because the rules are so strict that you have to be creative to let your message rise above the imposed rules.
The other said: film is the highest art, because to use it properly you must master dozens of technologies to get your message across, and there are no real rules so creativity is totally unleashed.
And me, an art-dumb physics/chemistry major, standing there listening to them argue, on the slime line processing black cod. Good memories .
Oh...my opinion about the highest art? Burritos.
Any art can be done with any level of talent. The quality will be proportionate however.
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.
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.
Anything created by a god.
Drawing well is harder than sculpting I find... and I've done both and studied both hmmm.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thinking three dimensionally may be much easier for some and subtractive art may be more sensible for some as well. I would say though that those people simply have greater talent for that sort of art.
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.
I love bagpipes. I even have The Scottish Rogues playing The Clumsy Lover as a ring tone on my phone. :-)
Separate names with a comma.