https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWTeSvCOFyE
thoughts on this?
>>2347630
I'd like to see him try and draw a human
>>2347630
Autism is a gift and a curse at the same time
How many times are we gonna make a thread about this guy
How come for some autistic artists, it can manifest itself in incredible accuracy and attention to detail, but for /ic/, the autism manifests itself in the compulsion to draw dickgirls and rule 34?
>>2347675
You got it
>>2347630
and looking at pictures his whole life. nothing special here
So, /ic/ goal is to become an autistic nigger and human photocopier?
>>2347702
yup
>>2347702
and, of course, dickgirls
>>2347630
old story. has anyone ever actually checked if what he drew was correct?
>>2347702
This board is so slow and scarcely populated that you can even tell when the trolls are newfags.
>>2348140
HES AUTISTIC, OF COURSE ITS CORRECT FUCK YOU
how many Sonic OCs and Thomas the Tank Engine characters did he populate it with?
>>2348853
he needs to learn perspective, it's setting his work behind because of it
>>2348573
not sure if hes the only one whos autistic around here
>>2347699
what planet are you on, seriously?
>denial intensifies
>no such thing as talent
>everyone can do it, even I
>some people have seen more pictures than others that's all
>nothing special here
>calming down again
>I can make it if I really want to
>Denial assimilates into subconsciousness again
>feels good, almost comfortable
>>2347675
10/10
>>2349010
to be fair I wouldn't call this talent. Its autism focus. Autists are capable of focusing their entire mental capacity on a task. It may put their abilities above others, but its because they're trying their hardest and focusing completely on the task at hand. They didn't magically get ahead or better understanding necessarily, they just work their autistic brains to the fullest.
>>2349610
>talent
>natural aptitude or skill
You can create all the new definitions you want.
>>2349613
The thing is I wouldn't consider this a natural aptitude or skill because their aptitude isn't in art, its in autism focus.
You can have talent on top of autism focus, but autism focus itself isn't necessarily a talent because its not specific to the skill.
Theoretically anyone can artificially use drugs to intensely focus on a task and gain similar abilities to autists we just don't and we'd have to take it constantly.
I mean this is arguing semantics I suppose, I just don't consider autism as talent, I believe they're distinct things that sometimes happen at the same time but lead to similar results.
>>2349621
Again, you're just creating convenient new categories to get around the fact that this guy was born in a way that inherently complements being able to draw large, detailed renderings of a city.
>>2349625
>new categories
no I'm not? he may be talented as well, but the skill autists get is a very different thing than what's described as talent.
You're simplifying it because the result is similar, but the process behind it is massively different.
>>2349628
>it's not talent it's autism focus, totally different, doesn't count
Yes you are. You're ignoring the literal definition of what a talent is and categorizing it as something else, probably because someone having a natural skill in a pretty clearly defined way (namely via a diagnosable disability) doesn't fit with the "talent isn't real" that /ic/ loves to spout.
If it's an aptitude he was predisposed to, that fits the category of how people generally refer to as talent. He "has a knack for it", even if it's via your coined "autism focus".
>>2349644
epic. I really liked the aids part and then you brought in the cancer part and it was like, just epic
>>2349610
Ah, "autistic focus"... I can agree that some autists can focus better than normal people, but I don't agree that it doesn't qualify as talent.
Would you be so kind and describe what you believe talent is, then?
>>2347630
So does this mean he's a classical or a modern autist?
>>2347630
Look at the retarded way he holds the pen. I wouldn't trade for any any skill if I had to hold a pen like that.
Even autists give up.
>>2350400
How does one even decline that much? Even if I didnt draw for 15 years Im pretty sure I could still do better than stick figures.
>>2350546
>How does one even decline that much?
You become a "fine" artist.
>>2347630
Very aurtistic
>>2349655
kek
>>2350400
Wtf is happening there? is nadia real? What happened to her that 3year old herself draws better than 20year old nadia
>>2347630
This guy reminds me of that autistic kid on DeviantArt who seemed not to be making any progress at all for years but when you look at his drawings each one was not only exactly the same style as the last, but the style was repeated with mechanical precision.
If he decided to copy a proper style he could become a grand master in no time by just using his autism alone.
>>2354426
paralyzed from the neck down in a horse riding accident. Nobody can say for sure, but her actual drawing abilities are believed to be more realistic than reality itself. Her assistant has to draw for her now.
>>2350400
looking at this is funny because I could improve my work from fig. 2.46 to ''nadia at age 5'' by constantly telling myself one simple thing: ''think like a 5 years old''
when you are an adult you categorize things, our mind simplifies the information we get to be easier on the brain (e.g. that's a horse, that's a car, that's a airplane etc.). so when one tell himself to draw one of those he draws the most basic stuff he remembers about it
but a kid doesn't know what all this stuffs are, so he ask constantly questions (etc. what's that? what does it do? how does it do? etc)
>bonus, don't let your kids do stuff which stops them from asking questions, like bullshit cartoons dumped down for 5 years old, but complex things for them, don't be afraid of mature subjects. remember, you don't have a kid, but an adult in becoming
>>2350400
I have a 3 year old son with autism and he can't even draw a straight line.
He'll never be a famous artist. being artist is not only about creating, but also about designing and promoting yourself. Autism makes him unable of the other two.
>>2354630
hahaha
If you look at it up close though, it's pretty poorly draw senpai.
>>2348853
You're right it doesn't fit but it still looks very similar. It's more like an interpretation.
This is not talent, this is a savant. You don't want to be a savant. People like this are very good at very, very specific tasks due to quirks in their neurology - at the detriment of many others. He's good at accurately recreating images from memory, but most likely he can't do construction for shit. There are no clever workarounds like one may think, because savants do ONE THING extremely well, and only ONE THING.
Another example is the dude they based Rain Man on, who did mental calculation like no one's business but who could never figure out how to brush his teeth by himself, since he originally was taught to wait for his father before doing it.
From this dude's wikipedia page I gather he's crazy good at doing urban landscapes and not much else.
>>2356921
I think most people get his by now. the question is: what... drumroll... is talent?
People who deny talent usually attribute normal talent to experience and hard work, and when faced with undeniable talent like autism they claim it is not talent at all, it is "savant" or "autistic focus".
So, that implies two things:
they acknowledge talent by negation "that is not talent..."
and it implies that some people are extraordinarily good at something, and there has to be a sharp definition between normal people who can only get good by experience and hard work, and autistic people who are subject to this "autistic focus". Had autistic focus occurred in a milder form in regular people, wouldn't that be talent? Or doesn't that happen?
Not that I expect a logial explenation from a mind in denial, but please explain what is talent?
as in "this is not talent".
>>2357124
What the fuck do you mean, undeniable talent? The whole "hurr evry1 ho disagre wit m3 r dum" thing has already pretty much set whatever argument you thought you had aside, but fine.
This is literal proof of what people are saying about talent. That it's a predisposition towards a certain skill or skillset, in our case drawing. It is not the magical hand of god touching you when you were born. In this case, the autistic guy has an incredible visual memory. If you are "talented" at drawing, you are predisposed towards drawing. Apparently in your fetal alcohol syndrome-addled mind, this means anyone who is not predisposed towards drawing cannot ever be good at drawing.
If you want to be a defeatist idiot, then go ahead, sadwank your life away. But throw the half baked self justifications out with the tissue so we don't have to waste our time on your trite shit.
>>2357146
Okay, so talent exists and it is a predisposition toward a skill or skillset. I'm okay with that. I'd like to add that the brain is very trainable and people can get good at stuff they don't have an appearant talent in.
I don't see how that definition separates normal talent from "savant" or "autistic focus" though.
>>2357261
Talent is used to describe someone or something after the fact. At the highest level talent matters but until then it is easy sailing.
With art talent is: supportive family and personal drive.
Supportive family as in: you have someone who pays the bills while you neet it up.
>>2357265
No, art talent is having a predisposition towards skills that are useful in art. People aren't born with a blank slate and have distinct personal traits straight out of the womb.
>>2355852
I work with primary aged kids. None. Of them have that level of skill
