Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

On May 26, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

Correct. Thus - "Art" != "Skill". They're not related. One may benefit
from the
other, but neither leads to the other.

I didn't say they were, people use those terms differntly.

It was a stupid statement. Art does not equal skill, but they *are*
related. Absolutely.

What is ridiculously inconsistent is that Popinjay has also taken the
position that practice results in better output, and what practice
develops is skill.

Give a person a mallet, a chisel, and a block of stone and a piece of
art may emerge if the sculptor has skill. Rubble will emerge if the
person has no skill. Something may appear if the person has no
artistic sense, but it won't be art. It is the combination of
artistic ability and skill that may result in a piece of art.

What is also stupid is saying that one may benefit from the other, but
they are not related. One benefiting from the other is a clear
example of the two being related.

Aptitude/talent does not equate to skill or results. Regardless of the degree
of aptitude/talent the particular discipline, be it a creative art, sport, or
technical understanding has to be engaged, exercised, and refined to produce
tangible results.

My point is, an aptitude/talent which is not nurtured, exercised, given room
to be fully expressed, is wasted. There are those who are not shown to have a
particular aptitude/talent, who with training, exercise and application to a
discipline can produce journeyman results the equal of those blessed with
such aptitude/talent.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
I didn't say they were, people use those terms differntly.

Sandman:
Yes, some use the word "talent" to describe why one person is
better at something than someone else,

and thats it. The reason doesn't matter

The reason is ignorance. For some, that doesn't matter, no.

Sandman:
when in fact he or she is more skilled because they practiced
more.

You don't know that.

My opinion is an informed opinion, based on scientific studies. I "know" that
just as much as you think you know talent exists.

Whisky-dave:
There's no evidence of that as somne practice
longer than others.

Sandman:
More practice is the result of a greater interest.

Whisky-dave:
No it's the other way around usually.

Sandman:
No.

yes.

No.

It's your relatively crap English here.

This had me laughing out loud. Drunk Dave saying my English is crap. Most
ironic comment in a long time.

Whisky-dave:
What is ability here, the ability to hold a camera ? Where does
ability come from... 1. possession of the means or skill to do
something. 2. talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular
area.

Sandman:
All of the above - apart from the "talent" part.

Only in yuor view it seems.

No, in the view of psychologists and scientists that has made studies. This
isn't something I came up with one afternoon.

Whisky-dave:
Yes a skill is learnt, a talent is a natural ability of one
you've not tried to evolve by learning from others.

Sandman:
I.e. talent doesn't exist, since no one knows how to paint a
masterpiece without any prior practice. No one is born with
"talent".

No one is born with skill either.

Well, duh. That's where that "practice" comes in which I have talked about so
many times. I swear, you post to usenet just slamming your fingers on a
keyboard hoping it will form sentences. You never actually read any of the
posts you respond to.

Whether or not a baby is talneted
enough to swim in a birthing pool is another matter. A lot of birds
can;t fly until a day or a few weeks after hatching the mothers
don;t teach them this talent, it evolves naturally.

Birds don't have a talent for flying, it's instinct - a totally different
thing. Basically, you don't have the base knowledge to even start talking about
this topic.

Sandman:
Talent is a myth - skill is pursued interest.

crap. In your tiny mind it is true but not of others.

The denial is strong in this one.

Whisky-dave:
Not everyone can become a cubist painter,

Sandman:
Yes they can.

Whisky-dave:
How ?

Sandman:
By practicing.

How does a chick practice flying .....

It doesn't. Birds fly by instinct. When they leave the nest and fly for the
first time, they're untrained and will not be good by it, but their instincts
will soon let them have a hang of it. Most birds have a rather short nesting
period and then they're nudged out by their mother, forcing their instincts to
take over.

Sandman:
I'm not sure what "skillful with your eyes" is even
supposed to mean.

Whisky-dave:
That you can pick out subjects and colour details that others
can't. Thought you'd at least relise that people have differing
eyes and brains and that we see slighlty differnt colours.
There's plenty of test out there for it.

Sandman:
This has nothing to do with "skill" or "talent".

it is when you come to photogrpaher which was yuor original; poin
twasn;t it.

No.

Whisky-dave:
the discussion isn't about talent vs. skill.

Sandman:
Yeah, it is.

You can't even remmeber the title you gave this thread ?

I didn't give this thread a title, Einstein.

you obviously need more practice to enable you to have the skill of
memory. as you#'ve already forgotten.

"Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?"

is this your first lie, it certainly isn't your last is it.

Maybe you need to look up the word "ability" in a dictionary.

Semantics, the trolls last resort.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
Correct. Thus - "Art" != "Skill". They're not related. One may
benefit from the other, but neither leads to the other.

Whisky-dave:
I didn't say they were, people use those terms differntly.

It was a stupid statement. Art does not equal skill, but they *are*
related. Absolutely.

Most of the time, of course they are.

What is ridiculously inconsistent is that Popinjay has also taken
the position that practice results in better output

Quote? No? "Better" is subjective.

and what practice develops is skill.

Indeed.

Give a person a mallet, a chisel, and a block of stone and a piece
of art may emerge if the sculptor has skill. Rubble will emerge if
the person has no skill.

And skill comes from practice.

Something may appear if the person has no
artistic sense, but it won't be art. It is the combination of
artistic ability and skill that may result in a piece of art.

"Art" is in the eye of the beholder, not the one holding the mallet. Skill is
used to create something, anything. Whether or not this is art is irrelevant to
the discussion.

What is also stupid is saying that one may benefit from the other,
but they are not related. One benefiting from the other is a clear
example of the two being related.

Of course not. X being beneficial to Y does not make X and Y related. Your back
problems may benefit from exercise on a treadmill, but your back is not related
to a treadmill.

Maybe "related" is another word in that list of yours.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Sandman:
The reason is ignorance. For some, that doesn't matter, no.

For you, is that what you mean. ?

No, "for some" is what I wrote, not "for me".

Sandman:
when in fact he or she is more skilled because they
practiced more.

Whisky-dave:
You don't know that.

Sandman:
My opinion is an informed opinion, based on scientific studies.

What scientific studies ?

I posted about them in an earlier post.

Sandman:
I "know" that just as much as you think you know talent exists.

yes I know talent exists it is the word we Englsih use to decribe a
natural skill that is usually self taught.

Just because a word is used doesn't mean what it describes actually exists. If
so, we wouldn't have words such as "magic" or "god". As for "talent", it is
used because it described a perceived notion about a persons skills. Studies
have shown that this most likely isn't the case.

Whisky-dave:
Only in yuor view it seems.

Sandman:
No, in the view of psychologists and scientists that has made
studies. This isn't something I came up with one afternoon.

It appears to be as you've not proved it with a simple piece of
evidence.

I have certainly "proved" the existence of these studies. And this is
psychology, not much can be "proved" either way.

Whisky-dave:
No one is born with skill either.

Sandman:
Well, duh. That's where that "practice" comes in.

No it doesn't

Haha, so no one is born with skill, and you don't obtain skill with practice?
Haha.

Sandman:
which I have talked about so many times.

and got wrong so many times.

Best endorsement I could ever get.

Sandman:
I swear, you post to usenet just slamming your fingers on a
keyboard hoping it will form sentences. You never actually read
any of the posts you respond to.

This is the sort of thing people do when they're losing the
argument.

Wait, you thought we were having and *argument*? That's pretty funny, seeing
how you haven't argued one single point at any time in this exchange. You just
make blatant claims and substantiate nothing.

Sandman:
It doesn't. Birds fly by instinct. When they leave the nest and
fly for the first time,

they fall the first time

Some do, most don't.

their instinct is to flap their wings like
a child would move their limbs in water.

Indeed.

Sandman:
Most birds have a rather short nesting period and then they're
nudged out by their mother, forcing their instincts to take over.

without the necessary physical attribues such as enough feathers
they will fall.

No ****, Sherlock?

Sandman:
Maybe you need to look up the word "ability" in a dictionary.
Semantics, the trolls last resort.

No it's not slagging off a persons spelliong or typing is the trolls
and the cluesless's last resort.

"Slagging" is the wrong word. Most of the time, your sentences are an
incoherent mess of letters. I'ts very very hard for anyone to try to decode
what you're actually trying to say. And added to that is your ignorance about
most subjects you participate in, so it's an uninformed mess of letters.

The fact is you do NOT know what the word talent means, rather than
argue about a word you don't know who to use, learn how to use it.

I have. I.e. I don't use it since it's a myth.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
What is ridiculously inconsistent is that Popinjay has also
taken the position that practice results in better output

Sandman:
Quote? No? "Better" is subjective.

No it isn't we all know what the word better refers to as it's a
refference between things.

Indeed, and determining which of these two things is better requires judgement,
i.e. a subjective opinion about the end result by a third party most of the time.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Give a person a mallet, a chisel, and a block of stone and a
piece of art may emerge if the sculptor has skill. Rubble will
emerge if the person has no skill.

Sandman:
And skill comes from practice.

But some are more skillfull than others and it's not always just
down to how many hours practice they have done.

Proof? No?

If that was the case life would be much easier, you wouldn't need
exams or tests, and no compitiotions would exists.

Pure nonsense.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Something may appear if the person has no artistic sense, but it
won't be art. It is the combination of artistic ability and
skill that may result in a piece of art.

Sandman:
"Art" is in the eye of the beholder,

It's beer holder, as it has basically the same meaning. Which is why
there are many artists. It is not a case that the best artist in the
world is the one that has practiced most.

Which is what I have said all along. "Art" and "Skill" are not the same thing.

Sandman:
not the one holding the mallet. Skill is used to create
something, anything. Whether or not this is art is irrelevant to
the discussion.

you won't know it's skill though will you

Skill is usually easy to spot, yes.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
No it isn't we all know what the word better refers to as it's a
refference between things.

Sandman:
Indeed, and determining which of these two things is better
requires judgement, i.e. a subjective opinion about the end
result by a third party most of the time.

So how can anyone get better by practising if we don't know what
better means.

We do know what better means when it comes to one persons skill. When it comes to
"art", it's not that easy to determine.

Whisky-dave:
But some are more skillfull than others and it's not always just
down to how many hours practice they have done.

Sandman:
Proof? No?

So you think the best runners/athelets in the world are just those
that practice more.

Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages, I've already talked about this many
times. That's not "talent" though. The topic is photographic ability. I'm still
waiting for that proof.

snip nonsensical stuff

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
What scientific studies ?

Sandman:
I posted about them in an earlier post.

There were no studies posted, no links nothing.

I mentioned the psychologist, scientist and authors that I base my opinion on,
and their studies and work. A person with a normal brain, if interested, has
all the information he needs to look it up further.

Sandman:
I "know" that just as much as you think you know
talent exists.

Whisky-dave:
yes I know talent exists it is the word we Englsih use to
decribe a natural skill that is usually self taught.

Sandman:
Just because a word is used doesn't mean what it describes
actually exists.

Perhaps in swedish it doesn't, but in English it does.

Hahaha!

Sandman:
so, we wouldn't have words such as "magic" or "god".

They are thinmgs peolpe believe in therefore we need a word to
describe such a thing.

Just as some believe in talent, so we have a word for it - that doesn't mean
talent exists any more than magic or god.

Sandman:
As for "talent", it is used because it described a perceived
notion about a persons skills. Studies have shown that this most
likely isn't the case.

No such studies at all.

Incorrect.

Whisky-dave:
It appears to be as you've not proved it with a simple piece of
evidence.

Sandman:
I have certainly "proved" the existence of these studies. And this
is psychology, not much can be "proved" either way.

Yes it can brain scans can reveal areas that 'light' up and others
that don't which are differnt for differnt people.

Which doesn't amount to "talent", so it's irrelevant to the topic.

Whisky-dave:
No one is born with skill either.

Sandman:
Well, duh. That's where that "practice" comes in.

Whisky-dave:
No it doesn't

Sandman:
Haha, so no one is born with skill,
and you don't obtain skill with practice? Haha.

Skills are learnt not obtained

You need a dictionary. "obtain" means get or acquire, and the method of
acquisition is education.

poor understanding of English.

Hilarious.

You can NOT go into a shop and buy a kg or litre of skill.

"Obtain" does not mean "buy in store".

You can NOT buy a skill, you can rent someone elses.

Drunk Dave's ramblings..

Sandman:
Wait, you thought we were having and *argument*? That's pretty
funny, seeing how you haven't argued one single point at any time
in this exchange. You just make blatant claims and substantiate
nothing.

I have given you links to what the words actually mean in English.

This thread isn't about what words mean in English. And it's pretty ironic to
have you link to what a word means that you don't know yourself!

You have replied to them and even denided talent exists even when
it's was used in a definition.

Just because a word has a definition doesn't mean that what it defines actually
exist. See "magic" and "god" again.

Just because it's not in your
volcabulary doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So "vocabulary" is another word you know nothing about.

Sandman:
It doesn't. Birds fly by instinct. When they leave
the nest and fly for the first time,

Whisky-dave:
they fall the first time

Sandman:
Some do, most don't.

Most don't fly the first time because their feathers aren't
developed enough for flight.

That's why most don't attempt to fly until their body is ready for it.

How does their mother train them to fly if they can't fly or how do
they practice flying if they can't fly to begin with. loko up
fledglings

They don't. Flying is instict. Birds don't "train" or "practice" flying. If
they fall the first time they attempt it, it's because they were not physically
developed yet. When their body is ready, flying comes as an instinct to birds.
It's not taught, nor is it a skill, nor is it a talent. It is instinct.

Sandman:
Maybe you need to look up the word "ability" in a
dictionary. Semantics, the trolls last resort.

Whisky-dave:
No it's not slagging off a persons spelliong or typing is the
trolls and the cluesless's last resort.

Sandman:
"Slagging" is the wrong word.

Not in 21st century English.

Incorrect.

Whisky-dave:
The fact is you do NOT know what the word talent means, rather
than argue about a word you don't know who to use, learn how to
use it.

Sandman:
I have. I.e. I don't use it since it's a myth.

Then prove it is a myth

It can't be proven either way. There are studies from which you can conclude
that it is a myth, there are also studies that draw other conclusions, some
contradictory, some not.

The thing is - you can't prove "talent" exists any more than you can prove that
god exists. Just as I can't prove that god doesn't exist, but being educated, I
have formed a firm opinion about the existence of god and magic, and deemed
them improbable enough to discard as ideas. It's the same thing with talent. No
one can prove its existence, no one can point to how it works. And there are
studies that show that it doesn't exist.

You are free to draw your own uninformed conclusions based on nothing but "gut
feeling" and desperation of disagreement or whatever motivates you, but I base
my opinion on personal experience mixed with informed conclusions based on
scientific work.

--
Sandman

On May 28, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On 28 May 2015 15:48:29 GMT, wrote:

Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

What is an unfair genetic advantage in sports?

Having a soccer mom.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/28/2015 12:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 28, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On 28 May 2015 15:48:29 GMT, wrote:

Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

What is an unfair genetic advantage in sports?

Having a soccer mom.


I guess having a league that accepts bribes, negates that advantage.



--
PeterN

On May 28, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/28/2015 12:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 28, 2015, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On 28 May 2015 15:48:29 GMT, wrote:

Athletes may have unfair genetic advantages,

What is an unfair genetic advantage in sports?

Having a soccer mom.

I guess having a league that accepts bribes, negates that advantage.

If soccer moms had the means, they would buy FIFA.

The other unfair genetic advantage in sports would be the Little League uncle
umpire, or the Pop Warner grandfather.

--

Regards,
Savageduck