Discover Your One Talent: Piano Prodigy

[TheStatutoryApe]

Entertainment is a crucial part of human life, whether it be the reading of literature, listening to music, or viewing works of art.

Exactly. I myself have argued the importance of technology and logic with those that have said culture and art were more important to human civilization. I think they are both just as important.

 

[honestrosewater]

Recreational talents are valuable to others only for recreation; they don't accomplish any real results. You can't build a better engine by playing the piano.

So you are dismissing all arts and humanities as just fun and games.?

But what I also meant was that piano and writing are done more often for recreation. It is pleasurable to play the piano or write. Sure, it can be pleasurable to do logic and math as well, but they are often more "active" and there is frequently the other interest of accomplishing some goal, making logic-math often not a purely recreational activity.

But you've just said that the goal of some activities is recreation and pleasure. Any activity can have a goal. So what makes the goals of math and logic- and, presumably you would put science in this category as well- different from the goals of the arts and humanities? They can all be done because it's pleasurable to do them. They can all be done to gain and share knowledge; Do you find a certain kind of knowledge more worthwhile than others?

 

[BicycleTree]

All arts and humanities are mere recreation. I wouldn't call them "fun and games."

The goal of enjoyment is a different kind of goal from the goals you make when trying to figure something out. When you try to figure something out, you start with your goal and you compare the steps you take to that goal, and alter course appropriately. The goal of recreation has nothing like that seriousness and determination of purpose; to the extent it can be said to be followed, it is followed... well, recreationally.

Yes, I find logic-math knowledge to be more worthwhile than other kinds of knowledge. Logic-math is where you actually can accomplish lasting things. When you make new technology or new ways of coordinating and organizing things, logic-math is the way to do it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

All arts and humanities are mere recreation. I wouldn't call them "fun and games."

The goal of enjoyment is a different kind of goal from the goals you make when trying to figure something out. When you try to figure something out, you start with your goal and you compare the steps you take to that goal, and alter course appropriately. The goal of recreation has nothing like that seriousness and determination of purpose; to the extent it can be said to be followed, it is followed... well, recreationally.

Yes, I find logic-math knowledge to be more worthwhile than other kinds of knowledge. Logic-math is where you actually can accomplish lasting things. When you make new technology or new ways of coordinating and organizing things, logic-math is the way to do it.

It would seem you don't know much about writers, artists, and the like. Most of them do have a very distinct determination and purpose and take these things very seriously. Quite a good number of the geniuses in history have been artists of various sorts. If you go back to the old great philosophers, the people who began refining math and logic, I think that you will find many of them who saw great importance in the arts. Look at the great artists of the renaissance and how many of them were also chemists, scientists, mathematicians, and inventors.

 

[honestrosewater]

All arts and humanities are mere recreation. I wouldn't call them "fun and games."

I don't even need to look to older or more serious genres to find counterexamples. Even entertainment-driven Hollywood provides several. Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg come to mind as popular Hollywood directors that have used movies to express, communicate, and inform. Have you seen Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket, Schindler's List, Amistad, or The Color Purple? Do you think these movies have no purpose other than to entertain? Do you call them mere recreation?
(BTW, if you haven't seen Paths of Glory (it's relatively old- 1957), I highly recommend it.)

 

[brewnog]

I don't even need to look to older or more serious genres to find counterexamples. Even entertainment-driven Hollywood provides several. Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg come to mind as popular Hollywood directors that have used movies to express, communicate, and inform. Have you seen Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket, Schindler's List, Amistad, or The Color Purple? Do you think these movies have no purpose other than to entertain? Do you call them mere recreation?

Even studies of History and Geography (both humanities) can provide enourmous amounts of insight into solving many problems with which the world is faced. They are far more than mere entertainment.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Entertainment is a crucial part of human life, whether it be the reading of literature, listening to music, or viewing works of art.

Literature, music, etc. are not necessarily 'entertainment' - you might be confusing them with popular music and supermarket-shelf novels.

 

[rachmaninoff]

All arts and humanities are mere recreation.

Have you read Faulkner's Nobel prize acceptance speech, 1950?

Yes, I find logic-math knowledge to be more worthwhile than other kinds of knowledge. Logic-math is where you actually can accomplish lasting things. When you make new technology or new ways of coordinating and organizing things, logic-math is the way to do it.

And what makes you qualified to say this? Are you both a mathematician and an artist? And since when is technology the one and ultimate purpose of human existence?

 

[brewnog]

Literature, music, etc. are not necessarily 'entertainment' - you might be confusing them with popular music and supermarket-shelf novels.

I completely agree, my point was more that entertainment is pretty crucial.

 

[fileen]

music and art can be very mathematical. escher? istvan orosz? heard of these guys. just few of the many. hey, what about da vinci? he was certainly a mathematical artist!

 

[brewnog]

art can be very mathematical.

Mmmm! Paint by Numbers!

 

[fileen]

try perspective. op art. you are very closed minded.

 

[fileen]

search mathematical art there are artists who specialize

 

[zoobyshoe]

Mmmm! Paint by Numbers!

I did a Monet at age 7. I'm still very proud of it.

 

[Smurf]

My talent is learning. If I want to be able to do something I just concentrate and figure it out. Thats the problem with people today, no one concentrates.

 

[loseyourname]

As someone who studied fine arts for five years and is now attempting to become a novelist, I feel compelled to respond to these charges levelled by BicycleTree (always a favorite target of mine, by the way - I love you, man).

Regarding visual art, I will begin with the process of composing a piece. Although the ability to paint or draw something sensitive to what it is in the world rather your own preconceived notions of it requires a strong right-brain influence, the composition of piece is very much a mathematical endeavor. The geometric arrangements and numbers used in groupings of objects is extremely important to the aesthetic appeal of a work of art. You might also be surprised at how much of a 'science' color schemes really are. As far as the purpose of art being only entertainment, many early cultures that had no writing have their history recorded through nothing other than visual art. In addition to oral tradition, art helped to maintain a continuity of culture. In fact, one of the primary purposes of both visual and written art throughout history has been to indoctrinate people into a culture, to teach what it means to be human and to experience the human condition. Especially in the guise of mythic writings and art, art teaches us about morality, history, and ourselves.

Regarding writing, I will comment primarily on the process of constructing a novel, since you have singled out novelists. First off, I will begin by saying that there is no such thing as having a 'talent' for novel-writing. There are many people that have a talent for using language in a beautiful and nuanced way, and there are people with great rhetorical skill. Writing a great novel requires neither of these abilities, and neither of these abilities will by themselves make you a great novelist. Crafting a compelling story and developing interesting characters with depth and transformation requires one thing - hard work. I've been working on a novel for about two months now and I haven't yet written a single page that will be published. I probably will not for at least another two months or so. First, settings need to be devised; backstories, character histories and the origins of their motivations must be concocted. A plot has to be constructed, carefully constructed to ensure not only that the story is interesting, but that each event follows logically from the last without being predictable, leading inevitably to a climax that must be the highest point of tension despite the fact that it will almost certainly be somewhat expected. One does not have a talent for crafting and constructing both a unique world and a compelling story; one has a passion for and devotion to doing so.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that many very good novelists are terrible writers. Many employ professional editors and even ghostwriters to ensure good narrative. Writing a good novel requires nothing other than the understanding of what makes a good novel and the willingness to put in the work necessary to follow that formula. That isn't to say there aren't good novels out there that are very original and break the formula, but it isn't necessary to do so to write a good, or even a great novel. The only real talents you need are a good imagination and an ability to understand how parts interact to create a whole.

 

[loseyourname]

I think I should point out that the OP asked what talent people would like to have. It seems everyone is just reading the title of the thread and posting what talents they already have. Personally, one talent I do have, but would like to have much more of, is the ability to throw a devastating breaking ball for a strike consistently.

 

[marlon]

This is an interesting thread.

If i could chose my talent, i would like to be a new Mozart, being able to compose devine music. Or i would like to be a great actor like Marlon Brando.

I do not wish for a mathematical supertalent because i already have that :uhh:

marlon

 

[zoobyshoe]

My talent is learning. If I want to be able to do something I just concentrate and figure it out. Thats the problem with people today, no one concentrates.

I guess the rest of us will just have to depend on you to take up the slack, then.

 

[GCT]

I chose a musical talent, playing the piano, partly because I thought it would be the most beneficial and appreciated talent of all.

Mathematical/logical talent, objectively speaking, is probably the most important factor in maintaining our current societies' way of life as it is related to healthcare, technology, economy and other important/basic aspects of our current U.S. culture.

But in my "heart" I admire the musical/piano talent much more than I do the mathematical talent, and I would rather be a natural at the former than the latter. There's a certain aspect of moderation about the latter, and I think that it is partly related to ambitious motivation. That is, as some people might say, the musical talent is ascribed as more of a "gift from the god's" or God, than the mathematical talent and thus it is a more "specialized" gift.

 

[Zygotic Embryo]

I know how to please women.

If i had one talent, it would be to be as athletic as MJ.

I want to pursue a career in science, and mathamatics.. but i also like sports.

 

[Artman]

All arts and humanities are mere recreation. I wouldn't call them "fun and games."

Not true. Esthetics in design surround every aspect of your life. Art can be found in paint color; automobiles style; furniture style; architecture; and I don't care what it is you are reading (yes even math or science book), if it is poorly written, you will quickly tire of reading it.

The goal of enjoyment is a different kind of goal from the goals you make when trying to figure something out. When you try to figure something out, you start with your goal and you compare the steps you take to that goal, and alter course appropriately. The goal of recreation has nothing like that seriousness and determination of purpose; to the extent it can be said to be followed, it is followed... well, recreationally.

I've never been a big proponent of "Art-for-art's sake." My art always has a goal. I've never been absorbed in recreation (which I consider my study of the sciences by the way) to the same degree that I have been when creating a work of art. Some examples of my study of sciences are learning the physics of a telescope so I could build one for fun, or learning electronics so I could build an amplifier for my guitar, or learning how a computer works so I could build one to write a novel and plays and record music. The exception for me is engineering, however, I treat that like an art by arriving at creative solutions to problems and then doing the mundane task of verifying my approach through math and science.