| We like to think we're civilized and fair. Part of that is to see
| all people as equal in all things.
|
| This has nothing to do with neither "talent" nor interest. Not everyone
has the
| ability to pursue an interest, not everyone has been exposed to what they
may
| have found to be their interest. Equality isn't a factor.
|

Equality of opportunity is an issue, but the myth we
cling to is that people are *literally* equal -- in terms
of talent, aptitude, intelligence, etc. "All men are created
equal". That's the myth that you're echoing. We confuse
literal equality with the equality of spirit implied by that
phrase. (Thus, currently we're trying to solve the "problem"
of less than 50% women in college math classes.)

| "Talent" is a slap in the face to those that are skilled. It minimizes the
hours,
| days and years they've spent practicing and perfecting their skill.
|

You make it sound like all people are nearly identical
computers that can simply be programmed.
You make your claims with nothing but adamant
proclamations to back them up:

"Nothing is inborn other than pure instincts."

That's a view similar to sociobiology theory, which
basically posits that we're DNA's vehicle to reproduce
itself. Edward Wilson at Harvard came up with that one.
His specialty was not philosophy, though. He was an
expert on ants. Could a worldview possibly be less
scientific, or more artless and irrelevant to the
human spirit?

Like Mr. Wilson, you seem to think your view is
"scientific", but there's nothing scientific about your
assertions. They're merely belief. How do you know what's
inborn? Do we even really know what a person is? Is
there a soul? Is there rebirth? If so, what carries through?
If not, how do you know for sure? How can we know
what we don't know, or what we can't know? (The caterpillar
on a leaf can't know that a harvester machine is about
to remove the field it's in, for instance. How silly, then,
would it be for use to assume that we can and do know
all of what's involved in being human?)

Whatever one might answer to those questions, I think
that if you ask any mother about her children she'll
express a sense that each child arrived with his or her own
aptitudes, agenda and personality style. For a scientific
materialist like yourself, with supreme confidence in the
view that reality is no more and no less than physical
matter and physical laws, that sort of common sense
experience presents a conundrum. How would we account
for it? If the mothers are wrong then how do you refute
their experience? What's your evidence that we're all just
organic computers born with blank hard disks? (And,
again, why would you assume that you can know that for
sure? That sounds like fundamentalist religious dogma to
me. You might say it accords with modern science, but
it's still dogma.)

Mozart composing as a young child.... must we assume
he had a nanny who forced him to practice piano 8 hours
per day from the age of 3 months in order to fit your
theory? DaVinci's genius in drawing, painting and
engineering.... He just happened to be "interested" in those
things? And where did that "interest" come from? If it
struck him then why aren't at least 1 in 100 people a
Da Vinci?

| I would submit that talent is inborn, but the capacity for Art, with
| a capital A, can be developed.
|
| Nothing is inborn other than pure instincts.
|

And you're not interested in the question of Art? To
my mind that's far more interesting than skill, yet you
didn't address that point at all. If someone practices
photography for years and develops an ability to take
exactly the picture they want in nearly all cases, yet
those pictures don't resonate with viewers, what's
the value of their expertise? The original question was
about "good photographic ability". Whether or not people
articulate their thoughts about Art, I think we all assume
that art plays a part in good photography.
But I'm not surprised you didn't address it. Artfulness
is something that can't be measured with scientific
instruments and can't be taught in terms of practicing
techniques. It's a wrench in the works of your theory.

I thought Sister Wendy, who used to be on PBS, had
a good explanation of art. She identified several levels,
such as social, political, religious... with "spiritual" art
being the highest form. I'm hesitant to define that on
her behalf and I can't remember exactly what she said,
but I think we can all understand it at least to some
extent. Spiritual art evokes a sense of sublime, beyond
our everyday paradigms -- some kind of intuitive felt
truth "above" the level of common, worldly truths. And
I think that someone who's pursuing artful expression is
always striving for that kind of art -- be it in photography,
painting, music, cooking, or whatever.

In the past I've been involved on an amateur level with
Ikebana -- Japanese flower arranging. It's a very interesting
art form. One arranges the flowers in the space. (Western
arranging sees only the objects and not the space.) One
bows before placing each flower. The idea with the bow is to
let go of one's egoic urge to make great art and, through
that humility, to see where the flower belongs. Instant
feedback. One can see when an arrangment works or
doesn't. An Ikebana arrangment can be stunning to look at.
Yet there's very little in the way of skill required. One could
practice the particular techniques and rules of arranging
for years without necessarily ever making a good arrangement.
I find cooking to be similar. There are lots of details to know,
but in the end there's a kind of intuitive connection that
results in good food. When ego gets out of the way, Art
happens. Isn't it the same with photography? There's mastering
the tools, what you call skill, but once that's done one still
needs an eye for the good shot, no? Which of those is the
"good photographic ability"?