|
I find that it disrupts communication, when in most cases, its just fun to share your opinion, whether or not we agree with each-other is irrelevant, but as soon as we attempt to police each other's opinions, conflict will arise and there is on need for that.
>first off, i dont agree with the way you look at natural vs >unnatural. > >everything is natural--even things that are unnatural or >"synthetic" are derived from nature and can be just as good as >something considered natural after processes. the fewer >processes one must undergo to achieve a desired result, the >more natural something is.
I think that is a contradictory statement. At first you said that everything *is* natural, and then you made a a condition of processes. It either is or isn't.
Coincidentally, I like your idea that "Everything is natural." but with with no conditions. That is a zen way of looking at it, because, and we often forget, human beings are from the Earth just as much as grass is. One could argue that everything we do is 100% natural and they would be right.
> >some people have naturally blue eyes; others wear contacts. a >person with grey eyes who wears blue contacts will need a >lighter tint to get the look of blue eyes. a person with dark >brown eyes will need a heavier tint. in the end, they can all >have the same blue eyes, but that does not mean there's no >difference.
I fail to see the point.
> >no need to over intellectualize the simple fact that some >things just come easier to some people than others. >
There is a need for *me* because there is no data to justify/prove one way or the other conclusively. I think its important to scrutinize and consider in great depth, and if you acknowledge that talent may not be innate, it may give you the confidence to do something you once gave up on because you convinced yourself you had no talent for it.
On the other hand, if you walk around believing that you have a special "natural" talent other people do not, it may reinforce your ego and blind you from your true self. I am using "you" in general terms here.
>as i said in my first reply, i naturally understood things >about rendering a subject than my peers. no one taught me. >there was no difference btwn my socialization and that of my >peers. i just knew what i knew. if anything socialization had >the potential to work against me, because i was actually >afraid people were going to make fun of my drawings because >they were so different. but what you learned in college i knew >without being taught. by the time i was in college, i was >focusing on concepts because i had most of the technical stuff >out of the way.
I am not saying you are not a good artist. I looked at your post and I like your work.
I am simply saying that I do not personally believe you were born with it. There are other factors to consider, perhaps you grew up in an environment which nurtured your artistic passion, and sure enough, you claimed that you did. Perhaps you loved it more than your peers, and it is commonly understood that if you love something, you take care of it in a way that is a bit more special than normal. Perhaps you were better able to focus on the task because it gave you a sense of freedom and comfort. When I was a kid I could not focus on anything as my head was always in the clouds. Also, I became an excellent artist after believing all my life I had no talent for it, and all it took was belief in myself and a professor that knew how to draw it out of me, pun intended.
~Experience is the currency of the soul.
|