"Does my child have the talent to succeed in art?" I get asked this question a lot, especially when someone new joins a class. Parents are looking for talent in their kids and they want it developed when they believe the child has it. In my mind, if a child wants to take an art class in the first place the motivation to succeed is already in place. And I can say with absolute certainty that liking art and wanting to be involved in it is more important for success than talent.
Talent has become a broad subject in the digital age because technology has expanded the ways images and objects can be created, to include the emergence of new media. The rules have changed. And sometimes the level of talent is not obvious when a student first joins my class. Over time, however, it will become apparent to me whether a student can draw well or not. Drawing skills are the basis for almost all classical disciplines - painting, design, sculpture, printmaking, crafts, and even pottery. So the ability to draw carries a lot of weight when it comes to how successful a student will be in a traditional art class. But what happens when a student doesn't draw well? If talent means a high aptitude for drawing and this is the primary criteria for continuing to study art, is that student finished with Visual Arts?
Let me pose a question to the reader: What happens if an artist who draws well loses the use of his hands? The ability to create through drawing may be lost. But the aptitude and drive to make art is still in the brain. If that artist still loves art, how will he continue producing? I believe he or she will make changes and find a way.
So what about the person who doesn't draw well and he has full use of his hands? If that person is motivated and loves art he or she will find something that works and pursue it. He is not finished with Visual Arts. As an art teacher I believe it is my job to help that person find success. Talent? Talent is overrated.
Talent has become a broad subject in the digital age because technology has expanded the ways images and objects can be created, to include the emergence of new media. The rules have changed. And sometimes the level of talent is not obvious when a student first joins my class. Over time, however, it will become apparent to me whether a student can draw well or not. Drawing skills are the basis for almost all classical disciplines - painting, design, sculpture, printmaking, crafts, and even pottery. So the ability to draw carries a lot of weight when it comes to how successful a student will be in a traditional art class. But what happens when a student doesn't draw well? If talent means a high aptitude for drawing and this is the primary criteria for continuing to study art, is that student finished with Visual Arts?
Let me pose a question to the reader: What happens if an artist who draws well loses the use of his hands? The ability to create through drawing may be lost. But the aptitude and drive to make art is still in the brain. If that artist still loves art, how will he continue producing? I believe he or she will make changes and find a way.
So what about the person who doesn't draw well and he has full use of his hands? If that person is motivated and loves art he or she will find something that works and pursue it. He is not finished with Visual Arts. As an art teacher I believe it is my job to help that person find success. Talent? Talent is overrated.