How is it that some artists just never improve no matter how much they practice even when they take drawing lessons?
>>2284825
They're probably not using their head when they draw.
Autism
No seriously it's because they're stubborn and have bad habits deeply ingrained.
>>2284825
How would you know if you are improving or not?
I think it's a lack of the ability to be self-critical. A lot of people just don't have the ability to critically asses themselves and their own weaknesses. It manifests itself in a lot of ways, and you see it everywhere, and it probably has a lot to do with why so many people can't into art, too.
>>2284825
check which apply (multiple checks are possible)
- don't know what genuinely good art actually looks like
- dumb or just plain good ole low intelligence
- don't really care about improving
- don't know what to actually focus on in order to improve (they pick stylistic tricks over fundamentals)
>>2284833
You just know. You look at your old work and it looks better than your new work. You don't look at it like "oh this picture of my sonic OC looks better than the picture of my sonic OC from last year. I've improved!" I'm not talking about jerking off to your favourite drawing, it's about looking at the qualities of your work not the content.
It's more difficult if you're trying to draw in a style like anime because there's no real world comparison to base it off of which is why you see so many deviantartletts drawing shit anime for years and years with no improvement.
Essentially if you care less about the content and more about the technical qualities of your art, that is a good mindset to be in.
>>2284825
Lack of talent. Plain and simple.
People are going to give me shit because they don't want to hear the harsh cold truth.
>>2284843
Basically this.
Even the ones that know they aren't that good sometimes fail at being self critical. And going "I suck" isn't enough. You need to go "Why do I suck and how do I fix it?"
I have a friend who just gets impatient with me whenever I try and offer advice. Some people just take it personally.
They don't look, REALLY LOOK, at other people's artwork because it makes them feel bad about their own work. They are essentially stuck in caveman level drawing and at their current rate won't discover perspective for hundreds of years.
>>2284847
>talent
there's no such thing.
>>2284870
You just outmemed his meme.
I hate this "there's no such thing as talent" kneejerk answer almost as much as I hate the "the only reason he's good is because he's talented" answer. It's neither.
Talent, at the end of the day, is just a natural predisposition to being good at something. People DO have talents. They look at something and they learn it quickly because it makes sense and resonates with them.
It won't magically make you an amazing artist, but you need to be blind to ignore that some people pick things up quicker with the same amount of effort.
If you reduce talent to "magical thing-better-maker" then yeah there's no such thing. If you view talent as a combination of factors such as your mindset and analytical ability - which does vary - these can range considerably.
Take, for example, how some people are just "math people", it doesn't mean they're magically good at math, it just means it resonates with them and they're really good at remembering equations. I'd consider this a talent for math unless you're operating on some retarded definition. It just means aptitude.
>>2284843
Actually I think it's people who enter a hugbox of people sucking their dicks and telling them they are "literally the best artist alive" on a daily basis.
They get to believe that and intentionally stick to their current level believing it's perfect.
I see no other explanation for this. Some of those artists who stagnated are absolutely terrible, just look at that guy who made the thread in here, the guy who draws in adobe using vectors, with a mouse. He got a small circlejerk and thinks he's an accomplished artist. Yet draws worse than a literal 3 year old toddler.
>>2284883
per the op, we are talking about 'talent' as being something that if you lack it you will 'just never improve no matter how much you practice even when you take drawing lessons'.
ain't no such thing. sure some are predisposed to learn visually, some are just more intelligent, but the variation amongst people in those is a small head start at best. certainly NOT something that would cause someone to never improve no matter how much blablablabla etc.
>>2284883
>>2284883
>Talent, at the end of the day, is just a natural predisposition to being good at something.
>It won't magically make you an amazing artist, but you need to be blind to ignore that some people pick things up quicker with the same amount of effort.
This OP
>>2284825
They probably hit a plateau and have become so used to using their muscle memory to draw. Simplest way to start improving further past these points is to change things drastically sometimes.
Its pretty simple, a lot of people just draw because its fun to draw and they don't care about improving as long as they can get the meaning of what they want to draw across.
I'm assuming you are the type people who never had fun scribbling shitty drawings with friends in class and think that art is some mystical subject where you have to be amazing in order to have fun.
>>2284883
> They look at something and they learn it quickly because it makes sense and resonates with them.
If you learn something quickly, it's because of cross-learning and/or prior experiences. Just because you don't realize that you have some prior experience/learning that helps you with something, doesn't mean it's not there.
Also, nobody is just "good at remembering equations", people who are good at math have just put a *lot* more work into it than you have (having a M.Sc. in applied math, I had to learn this the hard way.) They just don't tell you about it, just like artists won't/can't show you the many years and thousands of pages of struggling they went through before getting to where they're at.
Sure, you can justify "talent" in rational terms (as you did), but then you're just using the same word for a completely different concept. What 99% of people mean when they say "talent" is exactly that -- a "magically thing-better-maker". Take >>2284847 for instance, who thinks that no amount of work will help those artists improve. It's obviously BS, but he'd really like it to be true because he really wants to be a special snowflake.
>>2286544
And here we go...
>Also, nobody is just "good at remembering equations",
That there shows what you're all about. Of course some people are "just good at remembering equations". They're good at understanding the mechanics of them too.
I can solve a sudoku from start to finish all in my head, do you think that is a result of prior experiences? (I have no background in math or numbers.) cause if you do, then you are a moron and will use that to justify any kind of inherent differences in people, which in turn only serves to justify your butthurt.
>Sure, you can justify "talent" in rational terms
tl:dr talent doesn't exist
in practical terms it is a "magically thing-better-maker". talent is inexplainable and it makes you better at something. deal with it.
Am I correct in assuming that you believe *anyone* can get a ph.d in maths if they "apply" themselves in the field?
And that would imply a normal amount of work, cause there is no inherent difference in people right?
I acknowledge the plasticity of the brain, but it comes in different "builds". It's called genes. Do you believe in genes?
>>2286556
>my opinion is right, deal with it
Okay, bro. Good argument. At best, you're talking about general intelligence. If your argument is "Intelligent people are intelligent and pick up stuff fast," then congrats, you're breaking entirely new ground here.
Fucking what. Just leave.
Because they don't think.
The only way to improve your skills is think harder about what you're trying to accomplish.
You wouldn't decide that you could build a decent car by instinctually slapping together bolts and beams. Think hard and produce better work.
This is why I'm against all this "just practice and you'll get better" bullshit.
Practice is absolutely meaningless if you're not thinking and learning.
Understand the physics and interactions between light, optics and objects and you'll produce better work.
Good art is good art theory. Not mindless scribblings until something good looking magically appears.
If you suck and can't get better despite practice it's probably because your brain switched off.
Just think about what you're doing dipshits.
And if something doesn't come out right, do some research and find out why it doesn't look right. You actually have to learn something.
Art is mimicking and expanding upon an already established universe of physical laws, you need to know how it works before you can replicate it.
>>2286556
> They're good at understanding the mechanics of them too.
Nobody is just goot at "understanding the mechanics" either. Same deal -- it comes from working harder on them.
I don't know what you want to get at with your sudoku example. If I met somebody who could do that, then yes, my assumption would be that that person has probably solved thousands of sudoku puzzles before we met.
Maybe you have some sort of impression that all mathematicians (or artists) are rainman-style autists or something? I know I sure have never met one that was.
> talent is inexplainable
inexplainable, except... I just explained that it's down to cross-learning, prior experience and sustained, focused effort applied over time? That's not terribly inexplainable, and directly contradicts the other guys notion that those people will never improve regardless how hard they try.
> you believe *anyone* can get a ph.d in maths if they "apply" themselves in the field?
I don't have a ph.d., so I wouldn't want to make any statements about something I have no first-hand experience with. I certainly think anybody could get a M.Sc. in maths if they "apply" themselves, as you call it. The thing that in practice prevents people from succeeding at things is not some innate "talent" but the inability to focus and work hard.
> normal amount of work
> phd
I don't think I've met anyone who has a phd who hasn't experienced several nervous breakdowns along the way, has gained 10-30 kilos and has lost most of their friends along the way, I don't know if you consider that a "normal amount of work".
> weak strawman argument about genes
lel. Just accept the reality; "talent" as people use it (esp. on /ic/) is just an idea people made up to feel better about themselves.
- artists use it to justify thinking of themselves as special snowflakes and to put non-artists into their place
- non-artists use it to justify their failure at accomplishing their goals ("i just don't have a talent for that")
>>2284825
Some people have a harder time admitting their mistakes.
This isn't exclusive to Art.
>>2284825
If you can see your work and say it sucks, then you can improve. There's a lot of people out there who can't tell if they suck or not, hence all the shit art.
