hypothetical question

[Dichroic]

Would the world (at least, the poetry-writing / -reading segment of it) be a better place if all beginning poets were required to write a poem about a toothbrush?

Or a coffee mug, a child's game, a particular cloud, a day at work - I'm not fussy.

It's been my observation that a frequent problem for fledgeling poets is that they often begin by trying to be Profound, writing on God or their immortal soul or the state of the world. (I don't mean they, actually, I mean we. I've got stuff like that packed away in the back of old drawers myself.) And except for a few with extraordinary talent, they end up with Hallmark doggerel at best, and at worst ... well, worse. Something not even good enough for Hallmark.

Would beginning poets be better off if they were forced (or at least encouraged) to extract their poem from something utterly mundane instead?

(To be clear, this is an utterly hypothetical question. I'm not proposing any sort of requirement for new people here or anywhere else. Just curious about your opinions.)

[scottVee]

I know what you mean about poets trying to tackle the universe before they even know how to write. But no, no odd set of unenforceable "requirements" would make a difference.

I'd like to train poets to be open to impressions and visions period, regardless of where they come from. But many off them do think that writing poetry is all about thinking you know everything. Or, the other type of poet I can't stand ... the ones who write only to show off how "brilliant" they are (when they usually aren't), leading to how stupid everyone else must be by comparison (when they aren't). Argh!

[Mumut]

Why not ask toothbrush?

[Shweta]

Part of me says, yeah, writing about a mundane object is a useful exercise, just as drawing a mundane object is a useful exercise. You discover that there's really something there when you observe closely.

And yes, it might save us all one doggerel poem from ourselves as beginners, at least.

But well, isn't it something we all have to get out of our systems? :D

[dobiwon]

Would the world (at least, the poetry-writing / -reading segment of it) be a better place if all beginning poets were required to write a poem about a toothbrush?

Or a coffee mug, a child's game, a particular cloud, a day at work - I'm not fussy.

It's been my observation that a frequent problem for fledgeling poets is that they often begin by trying to be Profound, writing on God or their immortal soul or the state of the world. (I don't mean they, actually, I mean we. I've got stuff like that packed away in the back of old drawers myself.) And except for a few with extraordinary talent, they end up with Hallmark doggerel at best, and at worst ... well, worse. Something not even good enough for Hallmark.

Would beginning poets be better off if they were forced (or at least encouraged) to extract their poem from something utterly mundane instead?

(To be clear, this is an utterly hypothetical question. I'm not proposing any sort of requirement for new people here or anywhere else. Just curious about your opinions.)No.
To me that would be no more beneficial than requiring a beginning poet to write about God, their immortal soul, or the state of the world. Is it easier to write a poem on something mundane than to write a poem on something profound? I don't think so. For most of us, writing poor poems is the crawling stage toward writing good poems. Some of those early poems might not pass muster by even Hallmark, but they say exactly what the poets intended at the time they wrote them. The skill to put exactly what they intend into poems in a way that others can appreciate comes with practice and knowledge.

Getting to the point where a person can believe they really are a poet is difficult enough without putting artificial barriers in their way. Some of the truly awful poems I wrote years ago are the ones I cherish the most. Yes, now I can see the flaws, but they were the ones that made be believe that I could write poetry. Only after I believed I could write poems about what I wanted to write about, could I even begin to write on a topic suggested by someone else.

Just the two cents of a self-described poet. :)

[Shweta]

Personally, I think the value judgments and the easy/hard calls are really interesting, but the difference as I see it is between abstract notions and concrete objects. Writing about the latter makes us actually hone our perceptions. It's a useful exercise.

Writing about abstract concepts is probably not as useful a training tool. :shrug:

[Dichroic]

This question almost feels like putting someone in a room who is wearing a blindfold and telling them to write down everything that they see.

Actually I think that would be a very cool exercise for a writer.

Also note: I never proposed making fledgling poets *only* write about toothbrushes, just giving them that mundane a subject as an exercise. (Granted I did say they should do that before tackling Life, the Universe, and Everything, but I also said I wasn't proposing it as a real thing to do.)

Back in 8th grade I was in a writing class for a semester. The teacher had us begin each class by writing an essay on a given topic before we moved into whatever we were doing that day. We could choose to write a poem instead of an essay, and I often did because for some reason it seemed easier. I still think that's a useful practice.

Also, a poem that begins with a toothbrush doesn't have to end there.

[LimeyDawg]

In the hands of the beginning poet, the toothbrush and god will come across with the same impact. The subject matter is secondary to the exercise of writing, understanding what works and what doesn't, and improving. I think that simply writing is the best thing for any poet, but beginners in particular.

[William Haskins]

a categorical exercise presumes that all poets are created equal.

to cast it in the framework of the visual arts, one student might respond to a brick by brick buildup of skills, exhaustively sketching still lifes, the human hand, a vase... in order to build up their skills in perspective, in light and shadow, in scale, etc.

another student might just as likely respond to a blank canvas, a palette and his or her imagination and have the natural talent, temperament and mindset to create a stunning piece of art without ever consciously adhering to any set of rules or techniques.

[Shweta]

another student might just as likely respond to a blank canvas, a palette and his or her imagination and have the natural talent, temperament and mindset to create a stunning piece of art without ever consciously adhering to any set of rules or techniques.

In many years of art classes, I never saw that happen. Often I saw interesting vision hampered by lack of technique, but never by mastery of technique.

Just my 2c.

[William Haskins]

In many years of art classes, I never saw that happen. Often I saw interesting vision hampered by lack of technique, but never by mastery of technique.

Just my 2c.

yes, but i'm afraid you're missing my point.

the sample for your anecdotal evidence is made up entirely of those who, either through self-assessment or on the advice of another, sought out instruction.

unless you're saying that the only capable artist emerge from classes (and i don't think you are, mind you), your 2c is somewhat flawed.

[NeuroFizz]

I'd probably find some metaphor of a diety in that toothbrush, using broad strokes of phrasing to save the decay of society, or to focus on the soul of that discarded toothbrush, with its bristles bent from a life of fulfillment, and its handle scuffed from the pressure its thankless but steady labor. And I'd end up square on the top of scottVee's shit list, which means I'd better stick to prose, until he decides to come over there and put me in my place again.

[This is not a personal attack, but a general statement, scottVee being symbolic of an attitude. But there I go again, explaining myself in the poetry forum..]

[Shweta]

the sample for your anecdotal evidence is made up entirely of those who, either through self-assessment or on the advice of another, sought out instruction.

Point.
And I was doing that without being aware of it, which is totally my bad.

unless you're saying that the only capable artist emerge from classes (and i don't think you are, mind you), your 2c is somewhat flawed.
I'm not, it's true.
However.

It's hard to know what all this means because of the influence of the academy and of connections in the 'art biz', of course -- but I'm not sure any of the currently-prominent or historically-noted artists I've heard of, seen displayed, studied, were entirely untutored. And for the most part the untutored visual art I have seen is pretty dire.

So, okay, there may be a genius who would be harmed by learning what lesser minds were doing, but I haven't seen or heard of any.

And in the art classes I've been in where the teacher didn't teach but let all the little special snowflakes do our own thing, we did not improve.

So I'd say my 2c is indeed flawed, but not beyond all worth.

[skelly]

I'd probably find some metaphor of a diety in that toothbrush, using broad strokes of phrasing to save the decay of society, or to focus on the soul of that discarded toothbrush, with its bristles bent from a life of fulfillment, and its handle scuffed from the pressure its thankless but steady labor. And I'd end up square on the top of scottVee's shit list, which means I'd better stick to prose, until he decides to come over there and put me in my place again.

[This is not a personal attack, but a general statement, scottVee being symbolic of an attitude. But there I go again, explaining myself in the poetry forum..]
Surely a writer of that magnitude has better things to do than follow you around a message board impuning your art. I think you're putting on airs, Rich :D

As for the OP, I think it is natural to begin with broad concepts, just as it is natural for the beginning poet to think that every poem they write must impose his/her unique perspective on the reader. The most common flaw that I see in beginner's work has less to do with the subject matter than with the beginning poet's tendency to internalize everything, such that any metaphor or symbolism that exists is dependent upon something that the poet thinks, or feels, or has experienced, but which is never fully formed on the page. The reader feels as if they are snooping through someone's curiously formatted journal entries. I think if you ask beginning poets to write poems about toothbrushes, you will get poems that try too hard to tell us something about toothbrushes that we don't already know, or you'll get some tortured metaphor such as the ones Rich describes above.

:D (j/k Rich)

[Ken]

"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

[skelly]

"The invariable mark of a beginning poet is a profound lack of wisdom. And they smell funny."
Skelly

[NeuroFizz]

"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I think Timothy Leary said something similar, but I don't think the word "wisdom" was included. I think this is just an example of convergent evolution.

[KTC]

Uck! I said I wasn't going to say anything else to this hypothetical question, but I changed my mind. I do not consider myself a good poet or a good artist. I get by. I do it for pleasure and enjoy the outlets as ways of reaching higher in my own path. My path being the path I take from birth to death... no path to wisdom... that's just a bucket of crap on a hot day. Wisdom counts for nothing when you're a steaming pile of loam wrapped in coffin candy. My path is just from beginning to end... and poetry and art are two of the things I do along that path. My first workshop in poetry I took last month. I did not study art. I've had dozens, if not hundreds, of requests for commissions. This beginners should start at the bottom is a load of horse crap and apple sauce. We are not all created equally when it comes to this... some could take art classes for eons and still walk away with enough skill to draw a terrible stickman. I take offense to the question, actually. It presupposes that beginners lack an inborn talent... that they have to fish their way to the top. You are suggesting that those with an inborn talent dumb themselves down to write about inanimate objects. I knew my God when I was 5... and I was comfortable exploring God in poetry when I began poetry. I will never say I'm a good poet or a good artist... I don't have to. I am not reaching for a goal... I am reaching for a light... the light of the ending. I would never suggest that a beginning poet dumb themselves down for the pomposity of others who think they just don't have the time to read through the dregs of terrible poetry. Poetry is something that comes naturally to some. I believe there are poets out there who wrote amazingly beautiful first poems... to think otherwise would just be small minded and crazy. I must be going through a phase, because it doesn't take much to get me going these past few days. I know this is just a hypothetical question to begin a discourse... but man, it stinks of highbrow pomp.

[skelly]

I do it for pleasure and enjoy the outlets as ways of reaching higher in my own path.
Nothing wrong with that, and I can't see where anyone has suggested otherwise. Everything in your post is true as it applies to you, but I'm sure you would agree that other people write poetry for different reasons. For some, poetry may be less a means toward self enlightenment, or self exploration, and more a need to communicate or express certain things to other people. From that perspective, this hypothetical discussion isn't about stifling budding creativity, or high-brow elitism. Rather it's an exploration of technique, or an examination of the process.

All IMO, of course, and make no mistake, I think you brought up a lot of valid points in your post, all worthy of further discussion.

[skelly]

I couldn't disagree more. Posts like this make me want to shoot my foot off in frustration.
Good grief Kevin, it was a joke...

[NeuroFizz]

Kevin, I support your general position in your longer post, but here is Scott's full quote:

"The invariable mark of a beginning poet is a profound lack of wisdom. And they smell funny."

The second line should have indicated to all that his full quote wasn't a validation of anything but tomfoolery. Although...I've been stinking up the AW threads lately. Wait... Scott, dammit. What the hell do you mean by that?

[William Haskins]

So I'd say my 2c is indeed flawed, but not beyond all worth.

i agree, and didn't mean to imply anything to the contrary.

by the way, i never made a distinction between lesser and greater minds. only lesser and greater natural talent.

while not always easily quantified, there is a difference.

[NeuroFizz]

Uh-oh. lesser + lesser = lesserer. Oh, why won't Irish Spring and hard water slough this stench to the drain. Maybe if I take my toothbrush to my skin with its fluorided lessoning power it will unleash its lessening power.

[skelly]

Yeah... but it kind of went with the question and supported it. That's where I saw that it wasn't funny... but a validation.

To presuppose that all beginners start at the same beginning is ludicrous.
I think you've pinpointed the crux of the issue. Either we differ in what we mean when we use the word "beginners," or we're using the terms "creativity" and "talent" interchangeably. When I use the term "beginner" in the context of this discussion, I mean people who--regardless of their innate creativity--have yet to achieve the skill level to express that creativity in the form of a poem, other than by happenstance. To presuppose that every artist starts at a different "beginning" is to imply that there is no beginning, that every person who sets out to write poetry does so at the same level of talent and skill with which every other poet writes. I disagree. If poetry is a craft, rather than just words that bubble up from our subconscious minds, then there is indeed a "beginning," and we all develop our craft from the same starting point.

[skelly]

Kevin, I support your general position in your longer post, but here is Scott's full quote:

"The invariable mark of a beginning poet is a profound lack of wisdom. And they smell funny."

The second line should have indicated to all that his full quote wasn't a validation of anything but tomfoolery. Although...I've been stinking up the AW threads lately. Wait... Scott, dammit. What the hell do you mean by that?
If that's the case, you haven't been stinking them up near enough in the crit forum to suit me. I can't remember the last time I saw a new poem by you over there. Get crackin! Or stinkin! Or whatever you call it!
:)

[Godfather]

I think you've pinpointed the crux of the issue. Either we differ in what we mean when we use the word "beginners," or we're using the terms "creativity" and "talent" interchangeably. When I use the term "beginner" in the context of this discussion, I mean people who--regardless of their innate creativity--have yet to achieve the skill level to express that creativity in the form of a poem, other than by happenstance. To presuppose that every artist starts at a different "beginning" is to imply that there is no beginning, that every person who sets out to write poetry does so at the same level of talent and skill with which every other poet writes. I disagree. If poetry is a craft, rather than just words that bubble up from our subconscious minds, then there is indeed a "beginning," and we all develop our craft from the same starting point.

from reading your post, i get the suggestion that poetry and art is like a race, in that it has a starting point, and that everybody starts at that same point. but in reality, that's not the case. poetry is indeed a craft, but some people simply have an inborn talent for poetry, as others do for carpentry.

to suggest, as i think you did (and correct me if i'm wrong), that everybody starts at the same point simply because they start, is quite odd. yes, the fact that they started means they have something in common, but it does not equate them.

[Perks]

After thinking about this, I would imagine (and endorse) that fledgling poets should rattle around in the bigger concepts at first, if they're so inclined, not the other way around. Fish in barrels are probably great helps in building confidence and lessening frustration. It would take more refined skills and developed comfort with the nuances of language to write a good poem about a toothbrush.

[skelly]

GF, and Kevin, I suppose we will have to leave it there. Where it concerns the poetic craft, I firmly believe that we all begin at the same place. With varying degrees of natural talent, perhaps, but at the same place. And I believe the weight of evidence leans my direction in that I have read a very large amount of poetry by a lot of different beginning poets. Invariably they make the same mistakes. Invariably they fail to communicate effectively whatever grandious idea they are trying to communicate. Invariably they lack the tools, the study and the practice, that distinguishes one person's work as poetry, and another's as so much interior monologue.

Take umbrage if you wish, Kevin. I am sorry that I cannot seem to state my position without wounding your precious (and apparently very fragile) artistic sensibility. You see it your way, I see it mine.

[Perks]

I'd argue that most poets never leave that place, and this is why a talent for poetry is a rare and wonderful thing, not just a flight of stairs.

[skelly]

I'd argue that most poets never leave that place, and this is why a talent for poetry is a rare and wonderful thing, not just a flight of stairs.
I would agree that most poets are self-described as such.

:)

[Godfather]

apparently einstein was terrible at math when he was my age.

[Perks]

I will be frustrated in every thread that tries to confine art (and talent) between the handrails of a ramp.

I firmly believe that great achievement in art is rarely the culmination of a textbook process.

[skelly]

And Einstein started at the same place mathematically as I did.
Of course he did. What did he know about math before he knew anything about math? The same as you. The fact that he developed beyond your, or my, ability to comprehend (perhaps, maybe your a math wiz now too) is a result of his innate talent, or skill, or brilliance, or whatever you want to call it. It's what he did with the thing after he was taught it, or studied it. He wasn't born a mathematical genius, mathematics merely became the expression of his genius.

Perks, I don't think anyone (least of all me) is trying to "confine" the artistic process. But I do make a distinction between "innate creativity" and "poetic skill." All the grand creative visions in the world are useless if the visionary lacks the tools to share them with us effectively.

[Steppe]

Well I shouldn't get involved in matters I don't have the experience for, but I can't resist.

When I started writing poems, oh so many years ago, they were the worst sort you could imagine. If you think the ones I post are still lacking, you should have read those.

I tried to write about God and the universe and big, big landscapes
of the world's knowledge.

Then I took up photography and did the same. I took up painting and tried to paint mountains and meadows.

Soon I realized that I'd rather go over and talk to an old wheathered post and learn some truth.

How are you? Have you been here long ? Do birds come to visit?
Were you here before the great war?

I soon learned that a poem for me was like talking to the post.
And when I go out west to take pictures, I include plenty of old posts. I never forget to talk to the either.

[Perks]

Perks, I don't think anyone (least of all me) is trying to "confine" the artistic process. But I do make a distinction between "innate creativity" and "poetic skill." All the grand creative visions in the world are useless if the visionary lacks the tools to share them with us effectively.

I'm only resisting the notion that it's in any way akin to starting out with fat kindergarten crayons and working your way to Mont Blanc fountain pens through will and want-to.

I'm not a religious person, so I find life's most profound mystery in the alchemy of talent. I never discount discipline and hard work, they are vital and noble. But I also stand firm that they are far removed from any sort of formulaic ladder to becoming a good artist.

[skelly]

I'm only resisting the notion that it's in any way akin to starting out with fat kindergarten crayons and working your way to Mont Blanc fountain pens through will and want-to.
There's stuff after fat crayons? :Wha:

[William Haskins]

Of course he did. What did he know about math before he knew anything about math? The same as you. The fact that he developed beyond your, or my, ability to comprehend (perhaps, maybe your a math wiz now too) is a result of his innate talent, or skill, or brilliance, or whatever you want to call it. It's what he did with the thing after he was taught it, or studied it. He wasn't born a mathematical genius, mathematics merely became the expression of his genius.

ah, but yes...

we can agree that both were born as blank slates, but we can also agree einstein had latent talent that, when awakened, sprung forth with a far more refined ability to process mathematics through abstraction.

he certainly would have been wasting his time with rote learning of multiplication tables and primitive exercises.

[JAlpha]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dichroic http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2422764#post2422764)
Would the world (at least, the poetry-writing / -reading segment of it) be a better place if all beginning poets were required to write a poem about a toothbrush? )

My initial response is, no. But honestly, I don't have a very good understanding of what you mean by a "better place", and I'm not sure what assumption or concession you are making for the sake of arguement i.e. the hypothesis of your question.

[/quote]Would beginning poets be better off if they were forced (or at least encouraged) to extract their poem from something utterly mundane instead?.[/quote]

Yes. But, I take that position with contrary intentions, because I believe the deconstruction of so called creative "rules" and or "norms" is often the fuel that ignites some of the truly "artistic" disruptions of convential wisdom.

[Shweta]

we can agree that both were born as blank slates, but we can also agree einstein had latent talent that, when awakened, sprung forth with a far more refined ability to process mathematics through abstraction.

I certainly don't agree :)
Nobody's born as a complete blank slate, and Einstein's brilliance was not for math. As I understand it, he always found it hard. His brilliance was for an imaginative journey which he then struggled to put into mathematical terms because there were no others to use.

I've probably got a far better intuitive grasp on math than Einstein ever did. Just a far worse intuitive grasp on the universe :D So I can't do anything with it.

But here's the thing. If he'd never struggled and struggled and struggled with the mechanical basis, he would not have had that language to communicate his insight in.

And here's where the "talent" side of this discussion really loses me. I completely fail to see how doing some exercises stifles talent or boxes in a creative mind. Nobody's saying it'd be good for beginners to only do exercises. Just to do a few to expand their toolkit.

And I'd personally call a beginner someone who has a) not written any/much poetry and b) not read any/much poetry, but has a vague sense that poetry is what they want to write.

I wouldn't call anyone who's writing a poem because a poem is what bit them a beginner. But then, I don't think poetry offers itself as the appropriate mode of expression unless you have some familiarity with it. And for many people that familiarity starts in very early childhood, so I completely agreethat nobody we're talking about starts at the same place.

But I wouldn't put that down to magical Talent. We all have variable experience coming in, as well as different ways/abilities of processing that experience.

[skelly]

ah, but yes...

we can agree that both were born as blank slates, but we can also agree einstein had latent talent that, when awakened, sprung forth with a far more refined ability to process mathematics through abstraction.

he certainly would have been wasting his time with rote learning of multiplication tables and primitive exercises.
Perhaps. But he still had to become aware of, or be made aware of, and then learn, certain core concepts. He still had to learn how to use the tools, and prior to having been taught them, I would bet that he was no more "brilliant" than anyone else in his third grade class. What he did with those tools is legend...but I still think he started at the "beginning," just like everybody else.

[William Haskins]

Einstein's brilliance was not for math. As I understand it, he always found it hard. His brilliance was for an imaginative journey which he then struggled to put into mathematical terms because there were no others to use.

I've probably got a far better intuitive grasp on math than Einstein ever did. Just a far worse intuitive grasp on the universe So I can't do anything with it.


sorry. urban legend.

Did Einstein flunk math?
http://img.timeinc.net/time/2007/einstein/images/400spacer.gif

One widely held belief about Einstein is that he failed math as a student, an assertion that is made, often accompanied by the phrase “as everyone knows,” by scores of books and thousands of websites designed to reassure underachieving students. A Google search of Einstein failed math turns up more than 500,000 references. The allegation even made it into the famous “Ripley’s Believe it or Not!” newspaper column.

Alas, Einstein’s childhood offers history many savory ironies, but this is not one of them. In 1935, a rabbi in Princeton showed him a clipping of the Ripley’s column with the headline “Greatest living mathematician failed in mathematics.” Einstein laughed. “I never failed in mathematics,” he replied, correctly. “Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus.” In primary school, he was at the top of his class and “far above the school requirements” in math. By age 12, his sister recalled, “he already had a predilection for solving complicated problems in applied arithmetic,” and he decided to see if he could jump ahead by learning geometry and algebra on his own. His parents bought him the textbooks in advance so that he could master them over summer vacation. Not only did he learn the proofs in the books, he also tackled the new theories by trying to prove them on his own. He even came up on his own with a way to prove the Pythagorean theory.


http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/3.html

[Shweta]

sorry. urban legend.
I know I've read a quote of his that talks about having a hard time with math -- but that one might be urban legend too. Though I remember reading it in the introduction to his General Relativity book.

Looks from that article that he really isn't an argument for "talent over skill", at any rate. Learning that stuff in school does not seem to have hurt him.

Disclaimer:
I do agree that learning to do things only mechanistically, and filling in the blanks, is an approach that stifles creativity. I just don't think exercises have to be that way.

Though! To completely switch sides!
Looks like Old Al was working on complex math only about a year younger than me. He'd have impressed me if we were in school together, but not that much. But you don't see me changing the landscape of the sciences.
Which goes to prove that talent and imaginative ability play a role well beyond how well ya do on the tests.

So I still don't see that exercises hurt, but I can definitely see that talent changes what you do with that clay. I made silly-putty figures, he made art.

[William Haskins]

teacher: that einstein kid's using math to try to figure out the universe again...

counselor: dammit... give him a workbook sheet with fractions exercises. who the hell does he think he is taking on the whole of cosmology?

[Godfather]

every individual is different in how they approach a subject. perhaps some people would be suited to beginning poetry, writing about mundane things. others then are content to struggle with love and god, and its not for anybody here to decide which is better.

i have no doubt i would have lost complete interest in poetry were i obliged to write about mundane things. i wrote all that angsty teen stuff first, and i struggled through the concepts. i'm happy with how that worked out for me, and its generally the attitude i take in life. even if i have no chance of success, i go for something big and fail and fail until i get it or lose interest. others like to start small and build their way up. is their approach better than mine, or vice versa? no.

people approach poetry and art from different directions and perspectives, so people don't start at the same point, because they're on a different track.

[skelly]

GF I would like to see some of your poetry, created prior to your having learned written language, and grammar.

[Godfather]

EDIT: just reread your post. good grief, i have no idea where you're going with this.

i agree with kevin's post below.

[skelly]

Come on! A poet doesn't become a poet before they learn language. Now you're just being silly. A poet begins when they begin writing poetry... not when they discover language.
I think you are just trying to annoy me, now. A poet doesn't begin writing poetry until he or she not only discovers language, but learns to bend it toward his or her creative impulse. So, sir, you stand corrected.

Kevin, you just hang around in the wings of the thread and pounce in when you think you can make some unassailable point. Well, sir, contrary to what you posted earlier, this issue does indeed seem to be "arguable." And as it turns out, you are not in the sole possession of facts.

ETA: ALthough I will say this...you have more effectively proved my point than anything that I have said to the same end. If you truly believe that a poet cannot be a poet before they learn language, then you agree with me that there IS MOST CERTAINLY a beginning, and it is the same beginning for all of us.

[KTC]

I am not hanging out to pounce, Scott. Come on. And what I am saying is a poet craves to be a poet after they have language. A 2 year old doesn't think, "I want to be a poet". One with a grasp of language decides to be a poet. Once someone who has a grasp on language decides they want to be a poet... and this happens with all poets... they start. From that starting point, each poet has a different level of skill... hence a different beginning. I have read poetry from university grads who studied english for a lifetime... that is just plain terrible poetry. That poet began in a place where they will never fully recover from. We each have our own beginning... I never once contradicted myself there. And to think that I am in the wings waiting to argue with you is just a little pompous, to say the least. That kind of suggests that you can have your opinion, but I better not have mine.

[Perks]

I don't believe we all begin from the same point. There are some tracts of land with petroleum under them, but most are without. Building a well on top of the one type will make you rich.

[KTC]

ETA: ALthough I will say this...you have more effectively proved my point than anything that I have said to the same end. If you truly believe that a poet cannot be a poet before they learn language, then you agree with me that there IS MOST CERTAINLY a beginning, and it is the same beginning for all of us.


Some people will NEVER get a poetic grasp on words. Never. They come from a beginning far behind those who have a natural poetic sensibility. Some poets will never in their lives write a good poem. Those poets start at a different beginning than others.

[Godfather]

there IS MOST CERTAINLY a beginning, and it is the same beginning for all of us.

just because it is A beginning, doesn't make it THE (equal and exact) beginning

[skelly]

I just thought of an example in my own 'art' life I can use here. My first art class was grade 9 art (other than eating glue in kindergarten and gluing macaroni onto a pickle jar in grade 2 of course). I took it for an easy credit because I was lazy. About 2 weeks in my teacher told me he has nothing to teach me. He let me do my own thing in art class for the rest of the year and I got an almost perfect grade. Any assignments, he kept me to, but everything else... as long as I was doing art of some kind... and he checked in to make sure I was... he was happy.
Okay.

Look, if you will scroll all the way back to my first response to your second post in this thread I said that I thought you had some valid points, and that they merited further discussion. I then partitioned out one little part of your post that I thought fully had to do with what we were originally discussing in this thread, and commented on that.

You...GF...Perks...all of you, I have a great deal of respect for your opinions. Kevin, GF, I've read and admired your poetry, and I've said as much in various places on this board. Clearly I don't have a "bone to pick" with either of you. I feel like we are splitting hairs now...defining and redefining and further refining our positions. Either we are talking about two different things, or we cannot agree. I can live with that. And I apologize for the snippy comments in my last post. I began this discussion rather light-heartedly, but it has degenerated from that.

[William Haskins]

here's the thing.

if i went to my son's school and selected 10 children who responded in the affirmative to the simple question "do you like writing poetry?", and i sat them down in front of a table with a toothbrush on it and said, "write what you see", the results would likely be markedly different from one another.

one might write a simple, literal and obvious rhyme; another might also use rhyme, but seek to inject humor; another might eschew rhyme altogether and opt instead for a simple metaphor; another might construct a richer metaphor, taking the object beyond literal function into an abstraction in the emotional realm.

to suggest that you could then take these students and, even over the period of years, exhaustively instruct them equally in every facet of the craft and turn out poets of equal insight, ability and originality is far-fetched, to be kind.

[skelly]

here's the thing.

if i went to my son's school and selected 10 children who responded in the affirmative to the simple question "do you like writing poetry?", and i sat them down in front of a table with a toothbrush on it and said, "write what you see", the results would likely be markedly different from one another.

one might write a simple, literal and obvious rhyme; another might also use rhyme, but seek to inject humor; another might eschew rhyme altogether and opt instead for a simple metaphor; another might construct a richer metaphor, taking the object beyond literal function into an abstraction in the emotional realm.

to suggest that you could then take these students and, even over the period of years, exhaustively instruct them equally in every facet of the craft and turn out poets of equal insight, ability and originality is far-fetched, to be kind.
I concur. Has anyone suggested such a thing, Mr. Haskins?

[skelly]

I'll tell you what, let's cut to the chase. Since this thread has been hijacked into oblivion, what could it possibly matter. I'm tired of trying to be polite, and ignoring the fact that many of the people currently engaging in this discussion are in fact grandstanding their particular poetical ideology.

The bottom line is that, as brilliant as you may inherently be, you will still have to use the same g.d. technology that the rest of us have to use to overwhelm us with your innate, artistic amazingness. You weren't born with it--this medium that we choose to enlighten the world from-- someone taught it to you, just as they taught me. Or Einstein. Or Shakespeare. Or "fitty" cent. Or who cares. The bottom line is that you are not inherently brilliant. Nothing that you have to say increases, or adds significantly, to the world's knowledge. All we can expect from you is your unique perspective on what we already know. Some will strive to communicate, using the tools and conventions that most literate people agree upon. Others will vomit and call it art. Beginning poet's tend to vomit and point. I resist the notion that we should encourage that. I think that beginning poets, if they intend to speak to the rest of us, should first seek to understand the methods by which we may be made to understand.

[Michael J. Hoag]

I’m glad we can all be so certain about who has this god-given talent for poetry and art and such, so the rest of us can just work at KFC and not waste our time aspiring to what’s beyond our meager gifts. Is there a genetic test I can get? Or an over-the-counter white slip I can pee on? A plus if I’m talented and a minus if I’m not?

“My publication offer is late. Maybe I’m… talentless. But, how can I know for sure…”

Though my personal aesthetic goal is to vomit and call it poetry, I agree with Skelly.

I don’t believe in talent and if I did it’s the kind of filth I’d shuck off like syphilis and good riddance. In fact, the concept offends me. Its superior tone and self-delusion offend me.

And even if I did believe in a talent I don’t know what it would look like.

Keats fancied his talent in something like comfortably inhabiting ambiguity more than a gift for rich language, no? Would you insult him by shaving down his artistic achievement and profound insights to talent?

And Ray Carver, I think, had VERY DIFFERENT talent for a sort of structure and a talent of rejecting Keat’s rich language.

And certainly Joyce was a proet with a sociological talent and a talent for the sound of his native tongue and Burgess was a Joycean with a very different set of talents from Joyce, such as music and irony, which he brought to his writing.

And if I look at music I see a similar thing at work: Bach’s “musical” talent was architectural and Schubert’s was poetic and Beethoven’s was emotional and Franz Liszt had… very large hands.

And visual art as well. Is Warhol’s the same mojo as Da Vinci’s?

What all these artists had in common was that they inhabited their unique place in this world and their unique experience and interests fully. They gave themselves to us wholly. Their art was a process like evolution, a natural problem solving method, a random lateral exploration and synthesis, a unique solution to the problem of being them. Then they gave that to us.

And when I hear people speak of a talent for the arts, most often, when we get down to their meaning, they’re talking of a person's experiences, which have enabled a “beginner” to speak fluently the language of poetry—to ape convincingly, the raw style of their day.

But to speak a language fluently is not necessarily to say anything of consequence. And talent tells us nothing except to glorify the ego and play the Romantic hero.

I’m far more moved by a crudely executed but honest couplet, by an “untalented” grade-two, fully inhabiting a child’s experience of toothbrush-minty-mush than I am by an aesthetically masterful sonnet that casts toothbrushing in reconciling the death of a loved one: out damn plaque!

So I guess I believe in “multiple intelligences” and multiple types of talents, just under 7 billion of them.

“Talent” then, is the fullest realization of one’s unique window on the world, opened for all to look through. Every one of us has something beautiful to share—and all the more beautiful for any so called “limitations” we may have to overcome.

And the quickest way for a beginner to get there, IMO, is to cast off this filthy aristocratic idea of talent and especially its misguided aesthetics, and put it down the same toilet we dump clichés in. This has been the way for all of the art and artists I’m interested in, from Duchamp’s rejection of the “painterly” in his painting, to Mozart’s rejection of the florid “beauty” of the baroque. It’s the reason Becket gave up writing in English, to not be burdened by style and aesthetics. And every meaningful generation of artists rejects the aesthetics of the status quo. “Art is either a complaint or do something else….”

As for a fluency in any artistic language, (“technique”) it can (and should) be learned just as any language. It’s Suzuki method: “talent education.” “Look at a thousand paintings, then you know,” said Vonnegut.

Peace and respect to all, despite my ranting way with words.

Out.

[Dichroic]

This beginners should start at the bottom is a load of horse crap and apple sauce. We are not all created equally when it comes to this... some could take art classes for eons and still walk away with enough skill to draw a terrible stickman. I take offense to the question, actually. It presupposes that beginners lack an inborn talent... that they have to fish their way to the top. You are suggesting that those with an inborn talent dumb themselves down to write about inanimate objects.

KTC: who said anything about starting at the bottom? I don't see any reason why an accomplished poem shouldn't write about toothbrushes also - or about a cloud or a day at work or a child's game, as per some of my other suggestions. I don't see that that excludes writing about God, either in the same poem or in others. I do think that many of the best poems on the great subjects begin with very concrete objects: one of Donne's most famous is about a flea, after all.

And I don't think any poet was ever worse off for trying a few exercises. Worst case you come up with something lousy and you throw it away: best case you learn something new.

[William Haskins]

I'll tell you what, let's cut to the chase. Since this thread has been hijacked into oblivion, what could it possibly matter. I'm tired of trying to be polite, and ignoring the fact that many of the people currently engaging in this discussion are in fact grandstanding their particular poetical ideology.

The bottom line is that, as brilliant as you may inherently be, you will still have to use the same g.d. technology that the rest of us have to use to overwhelm us with your innate, artistic amazingness. You weren't born with it--this medium that we choose to enlighten the world from-- someone taught it to you, just as they taught me. Or Einstein. Or Shakespeare. Or "fitty" cent. Or who cares. The bottom line is that you are not inherently brilliant. Nothing that you have to say increases, or adds significantly, to the world's knowledge. All we can expect from you is your unique perspective on what we already know. Some will strive to communicate, using the tools and conventions that most literate people agree upon. Others will vomit and call it art. Beginning poet's tend to vomit and point. I resist the notion that we should encourage that. I think that beginning poets, if they intend to speak to the rest of us, should first seek to understand the methods by which we may be made to understand.

i don't see that the thread has been hijacked, and i certainly haven't made any attempts to make it contentious. but this latest post of yours is certainly amusing.

[skelly]

And when I hear people speak of a talent for the arts, most often, when we get down to their meaning, they’re talking of a person's experiences, which have enabled a “beginner” to speak fluently the language of poetry—to ape convincingly, the raw style of their day.

But to speak a language fluently is not necessarily to say anything of consequence. And talent tells us nothing except to glorify the ego and play the Romantic hero.

Well there you go. A few sparse lines to say what I have mostly intimated at in God knows how many posts. I was starting to get pissed before...now I am mostly overcome with beer-fueled ennui.

Have a nice day.

:D

[William Haskins]

I was starting to get pissed before...

as someone who prides himself at getting pissed at the drop of a hat, i sincerely can't see what in this thread have your hackles up so.

[skelly]

i don't see that the thread has been hijacked, and i certainly haven't made any attempts to make it contentious. but this latest post of yours is certainly amusing.
I didn't say you did, William. I had hoped you would read it and expand your thoughts beyond pithy. Luckily you were at least amused.

[Dichroic]

ah, but yes...

we can agree that both were born as blank slates, but we can also agree einstein had latent talent that, when awakened, sprung forth with a far more refined ability to process mathematics through abstraction.

he certainly would have been wasting his time with rote learning of multiplication tables and primitive exercises.


??? It's kind of hard to do calculus if you can't multiply. And yes, even now with calculators and computers you need to have a sense of how it works yourself in order to develop a sense of when you've gotten a wrong answer.

Whether this applies to poetry I don't know.

[skelly]

as someone who prides himself at getting pissed at the drop of a hat, i sincerely can't see what in this thread have your hackles up so.
William, I have a great deal of respect for your opinion and your intelligence. I am operating on the assumption that you have read the thread through. This was a good-natured discussion up to the point that Kevin pissed his pants. That annoys me.

[William Haskins]

I had hoped you would read it and expand your thoughts beyond pithy.

actually i've made every effort to explain my opinions on the matter as thoroughly as possible.

[Perks]

I think part of the heat comes from the presumption that anyone who subscribes to the notion of talent and innate ability is automatically assigning a greater worth to one set over another.

Because someone has, as I see it, a wired knack for wringing the most out of word combinations, doesn't make them a more valuable human being.

All ability will come to nothing without dedication. Nothing wrong at all with a run at some writing exercises. I just don't believe that practice and instruction have the ability to move anyone beyond proficiency.

[skelly]

actually i've made every effort to explain my opinions on the matter as thoroughly as possible.
You have, and that's why I keep trying to back out of the thing. I don't really disagree with anything you have said...and as I have pointed out, I immediately told Kevin that I thought his second post had many valid points that were worth discussing. But, as usual, everyone wants to impose their philosophy of the thing on everyone else. I guess I have to include myself in that indictment. So it turned into a pissing contest, I guess. I think the various works that I have posted here will attest if or not I am some sort of poetic elitist, or formalist. I'm not. But someone wanted to espouse their poetic philosophy publically, and apparently my comments as regards the OP afforded an irresistible opportunity.

[Dichroic]

I think part of the heat comes from the presumption that anyone who subscribes to the notion of talent and innate ability is automatically assigning a greater worth to one set over another.

Because someone has, as I see it, a wired knack for wringing the most out of word combinations, doesn't make them a more valuable human being.

All ability will come to nothing without dedication. Nothing wrong at all with a run at some writing exercises. I just don't believe that practice and instruction have the ability to move anyone beyond proficiency.

I think this says it all. Exercises are useful to the point of getting someone to that point of proficiency; something else is needed to move beyond it.

Talent is a handy thing; it makes the beginning steps easier for you. I would say, for example (and many others have said) that I have a talent with words. Does it mean my eighth grade poems were brilliant? No, just that they scanned. Does it mean I write good poems now? Not particularly, especially not compared to some others on these boards. Because to get to that step, you need to have something interesting to say. What instruction can do is to help someone who does have something interesting to say to develop the tools to do so.

[William Haskins]

But, as usual, everyone wants to impose their philosophy of the thing on everyone else. I guess I have to include myself in that indictment. So it turned into a pissing contest, I guess.

i see no inherent harm in a thousand different poetic philosophies being proferred, even as they might dismiss the other 999.

history is riddled with artists who created profound works minus any formal instruction, much less being corralled retroactively into some primitive technique-building exercise.

that, in itself, makes it self-evident to me that desire, world view, the way individual cognitive processes are wired, etc. combine to make each writer unique.

part of that uniqueness is bound to manifest itself in varying degrees in some who got it and some who ain't.

[skelly]

i see no inherent harm in a thousand different poetic philosophies being proferred, even as they might dismiss the other 999.

history is riddled with artists who created profound works minus any formal instruction, much less being corralled retroactively into some primitive technique-building exercise.

that, in itself, makes it self-evident to me that desire, world view, the way individual cognitive processes are wired, etc. combine to make each writer unique.

part of that uniqueness is bound to manifest itself in varying degrees in some who got it and some who ain't.
Perhaps. But one can't help but notice that you are speaking in past tense, of historical things. History is indeed riddled with such people. The present is sadly lacking. I wonder why.

[William Haskins]

Perhaps. But one can't help but notice that you are speaking in past tense, of historical things. History is indeed riddled with such people. The present is sadly lacking. I wonder why.

perspective, i suppose.

but then you might be working against your own argument here, as it's goddamn near certain that we live in an age when there are more students of poetry, online workshops, how-to books and so-called experts that at any time in human history.

[Michael J. Hoag]

I think the discussion of talent is wrong-headed, it emphasizes the Glorious Artist and not the work. And work can be improved or why not just lay down and die.

I don't care about the artist or his ego.

But if I did, most of the greatest artists I've met and most that I can think of off hand rejected "talent." They worked and they know it. Even if it was in an unorthodox way.

[skelly]

perspective, i suppose.

but then you might be working against your own argument here, as it's goddamn near certain that we live in an age when there are more students of poetry, online workshops, how-to books and so-called experts that at any time in human history.
I can't refute that. Although I stand by what I told Perks earlier...most modern poets are self-identified.

Anyway, I can't pursue it further. Dinner and bed awaits. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue though, William. And I mean that.

[William Haskins]

likewise, sir.

[Perks]

The present is sadly lacking. I wonder why.I don't know if it's true or not. Can't hear over the din. It's a crowded room these days since the carriages became cars and high-speed internet connections.

[Perks]

I think the discussion of talent is wrong-headed, it emphasizes the Glorious Artist and not the work.

Oh, I don't think this is true at all. Artists and garden slugs die just the same.

ETA - Seriously. Pour salt on Haskins and see what happens.

[William Haskins]

be sure to bring a wedge of lime and a bottle of tequila.

[Perks]

As it happens, I never leave home without them.

[Dichroic]

But if I did, most of the greatest artists I've met and most that I can think of off hand rejected "talent." They worked and they know it. Even if it was in an unorthodox way.

But again, those aren't mutually exclusive. Work without talent may get to proficiency but rarely to greatness. Talent without work means nothing is produced at all (or else there's just whining to how great they could have been if only). You need both.

[Pat~]

Would the world (at least, the poetry-writing / -reading segment of it) be a better place if all beginning poets were required to write a poem about a toothbrush?...

It's been my observation that a frequent problem for fledgeling poets is that they often begin by trying to be Profound, writing on God or their immortal soul or the state of the world. (I don't mean they, actually, I mean we. I've got stuff like that packed away in the back of old drawers myself.) And except for a few with extraordinary talent, they end up with Hallmark doggerel at best, and at worst ... well, worse. Something not even good enough for Hallmark. ...

Would beginning poets be better off if they were forced (or at least encouraged) to extract their poem from something utterly mundane instead?


What's interesting about this post is the assumption that all beginning poets are writing on assignment ("encouraged to extract their poem...") or for an audience ("trying to be profound"). I guess I can only speak to my own experience, but my first poetry was spontaneous and private. The first poetry I ever wrote that was not private was spontaneous, goofy limerick verse on the back of a tour bus in Israel with fellow classmates ("Back of the Bus Blues") which we then set to music. Then again, maybe some would not call that 'poetry'... ;). But I can tell you, also, that I would not 'have been a better poet' if in my initial experiences I had been "forced...to extract [a] poem from something utterly mundane." The problem for me isn't the mundane subject matter--it's the aspect of being 'forced to extract.' Every poem I've ever written has been a personal emotional response to a trigger; it essentially birthed itself--it was something that wanted to come out on its own. Some of them were babies only a mother could love, but that's just part of growing as a writer.

But again, those aren't mutually exclusive. Work without talent may get to proficiency but rarely to greatness. Talent without work means nothing is produced at all (or else there's just whining to how great they could have been if only). You need both.

Work without talent can get to proficiency; talent without (much) work can also produce a certain level of greatness, depending on the degree of raw talent. An 'underachieving Einstein' will still achieve something almost in spite of himself. Additionally, talent usually is its own reward--so that those who have an inborn talent tend to use it because of the innate satisfaction it brings.

(I do believe there is such a thing as inborn talent or giftedness for certain things. I know that might sound exclusive to some people, but there is plenty of literature in the field to support the idea.)

[Ken]

But again, those aren't mutually exclusive. Work without talent may get to proficiency but rarely to greatness. Talent without work means nothing is produced at all (or else there's just whining to how great they could have been if only). You need both.

I don't have a shred of talent myself :-(
From what I've read on those that do, it seems that talented people don't shirk from work but rather from the constraints that are imposed on the craft. These exceptional (and rare) individuals have an inner vision and really need to follow their own course and hone their craft in the way they see fit. As to the sheer amount of work and hours they put into their work, though, they put in an equal amount, and in many cases more, as they're forever striving to reach new peaks.
So while I am in awe of those with talent, and have the utmost admiration for them, I am not at all envious of them...or at least I like to think so ;-)

[poetinahat]

Jesus Christ.

Obviously, this question has hit home particularly hard with some of us. Can I request that we play the ball and not the man?

It seems to me, also, there's some confusion here between 'wisdom' and 'education'. The two aren't the same; IMO, they're not even correlated, at least no more than love and lust. [ETA: I'd add that education, by itself, does not lessen an artist's credentials. Educational snobbery and its reverse are equivalent fallacies.]

I'm tempted to start another thread to discuss whether violent disagreement is an essential aspect of an artistic community. Not tonight, though.

[Perks]

I'm tempted to start another thread to discuss whether violent disagreement is an essential aspect of an artistic community. Not tonight, though.It's not night, it's morning. It's not winter, it's summer. Where the hell are you anyway?

I think that would be a fascinating thread, sir.

[Stew21]

I'm arriving a bit late to this as I've been on vacation. Just wanted to say that to get where I am poetically (whether counted as baby steps or leaps, I am not sure), it took a hell of a lot of work.
I'd like to think there was some level of born-ability with words prior to setting out to write good poetry, but I'm not sure.
I had to exercise poetic device and expand the tool box - including vocabulary, life experience, and usage of poetic tools such as rhyme, meter, metaphor, alliteration, form, etc. It has taken a great deal of practice and I have a long way to go, but I like to believe that each poem I write is a building block in place for the next - that I learn each time I set out to write. Whether or not talent was there from the beginning, I don't know, but honing it, giving it legs to stand on, and understanding the names of the pieces of a poem were necessary in being able to understand where it went wrong and exactly what went wrong for me to learn and improve. What I wrote in my youngest dives into poetry were horrible, I see now, but as an adult, the majority of my poetic journey took place here, in front of these people. Many of the poets who were here before me became my very patient teachers and mentors. They struggled through whatever subject matter I chose to tackle - no matter how poorly I tackled it.
Whether or not I'm in a good place with my poetry now is beside the point. The point is the path of improvement. What a difference a year makes when blessed with patient teachers.
Now to the hypothetical - had those teachers given me assignments and limited my subject matter to build up to the hard stuff, I never would have continued to write poetry. It comes from a place different than that and it is truly difficult to box it in in such a way. I simply would have chosen not to write about the toothbrush if the toothbrush had not stirred me. In short, I wouldn't have written at all if I was told what I had to write about every time.
Hell, if I had to work through assignments, I might still be trying to get a grip on iambic meter and writing literal descriptions. If I'd had to pass those "write about this cat" tests before I was allowed to write about the people about whom I choose to write and within the metaphors I choose to paint them I never would have written about the people at all.
I suppose that is an individual learning curve. I had to attempt big and fail big (and publicly here, quite often) a few times and sometimes still do.
My journey from having no formal poetic schooling to the point I am now is evident in this forum over the past 2 years. Where I started with inborn talent may determine a different finish line for me compared to some very naturally gifted people here, but I like to think hard work makes up for some of it. But I do have to add that it's my journey, my starting point and my finish line. No one is in this race with me. Thankfully though, there have been a great many people at AW who have been coaches - even when it wasn't pleasant, and terrific cheerleaders just when I've needed it.

No. I don't think beginning poets should have to hit easier subjects first. I think the poet dictates what s/he is willing to try. People with the drive and a gift for words may require varying degrees of practice and hard work. My brain being able to process poetic thought and that poetic thought being awakened, then honed, for me, is the way to become a great poet. I still have some honing to do, but thankfully no one told me that I must continue to work on my forms before I am allowed to write about Pygmallion as a poet.

The learning is different for all - as it should be - and therefore the beginnings and endings are different for all - in my opinion, as it should be.

[Michael J. Hoag]

I'm tempted to start another thread to discuss whether violent disagreement is an essential aspect of an artistic community. Not tonight, though.

Actually, I found this thread to be a beautiful and intelligent discussion. Even though you are all wrong. ;)

I'd add that education, by itself, does not lessen an artist's credentials. Educational snobbery and its reverse are equivalent fallacies. And three cheers on that bit.

[Pat~]

(Now I'm curious--has there ever been a Poetry Discussion thread moved to TIO? :D)

I think most would agree that education and 'work' like the exercise mentioned in the OP can develop a poet (no matter how gifted) and hone the craft; maybe some are just disagreeing more with the sweeping assertion of the OP--that that was the formula that would necessarily produce better poets if applied at the outset.

[Perks]

I can see it now, 'When Good Poets Go Bad'. It'll be a Fox special.

[Godfather]

hoag, what i've gathered from your opinion is that there is no such thing as talent?

well, some people are born with faster metabolisms, some people have a natural intelligence that is leagues beyond anybody elses, and why can it not follow that some people have a natural proficiency for the arts?

mozart, as we all know, composed a symphony at 6. you can't honestly say that it was simply technique building exercises that got him to his point of absolute musical genius?

[Michael J. Hoag]

First of all, feel free to call me Mike or Michael, or if you wish Mr. Hoag.

It seems this thread has brought up two points: the pragmatic point of how best to train an artist and the second issue of the extent of “talent.” I think it’s this second point that has brought about the contention in this thread. I’m currently 50,000 words deep in a novel ("earn six figures" below) that explores this subject so I’ll say it doesn’t surprise me that people are passionate about it.

My position is this: “talent” (in artistic terms) is a hypothesis introduced in the West around 1800 as an attempt to naturalize the superficial observation of phenomena I’ll crudely call “differing levels of success.” But just as “the world is flat” may seem a natural conclusion based on superficial observation, the same is true with “talent” hypothesis.

So my position is this: “talent” is a hypothesis, not a natural fact, as someone here stated. My position is simply to treat it as such.

Let me be clear about what I mean:

1. I accept that there are an extremely limited group of native abilities which are possessed by a very few of us such as “savant” abilities or Franz Liszt’s extremely large and powerful hands.
2. I accept that there are also a number of acutely specific abilities, including a very small number of intellectual and sensory faculties, which now appear to have a genetic correlation.

I reject that either of these have any meaningful correlation to success in any complicated human endeavor because the skill sets required for success and the criteria for assessing that success are too broad and complicated. A savant may have an extraordinary aptitude for computation, but that does not give her a meaningful advantage in making a profound contribution to the field of mathematics. While Franz Liszt’s large hands gave him a slight advantage in virtuosity, they did not significantly contribute to his accomplishment as an artist. Indeed, his most critically acclaimed compositions are his pieces that put aside “virtuosity” and “technique” and made very simple and still artistic statements, such as Nuage Gris.

What made Mozart and Bach and Liszt special was this: they practiced like crazy.

Indeed, that’s what researchers studying the subject, such as Howard Gardener, have found is the most important factor in success: PRACTICE, WORK.

And so I agree with researchers who have found that a beginner’s recognized “talent, natural aptitude” has not been demonstrated to correlate with outcome despite superficial human observation. So it’s a meaningless word.

But I believe it has a function, and it’s one I detest.
There’s a functionalist perspective on one of the roles of art: it acts as an indicator of class and social group. Put simply, young people wear t-shirts with their favorite bands as a symbol of their values. But they say their music is somehow better.

There are empty words we use to describe art (and people), which can’t be proven to have objective meaning, such as: talent, fun, honest, sincere, natural, fake, intelligent, smart and so on.

Usually, these words are seen as conveying: “the same class, social group as me. We share the same values.” and nothing more objective than that.

A perfect example of it, is your example of intelligence. Historically, the idea of “g” or “general intelligence” came from the field of phrenology and the goal of showing that the white race was superior and deserved its dominant position in the world.

It was only when their skull-measuring failed that they created the world’s first intelligence test.

Subsequently, every test proposed for “g” has been shown to be culturally biased. All those tests show is: “you’ve got the same values as my social group.”

This problem has been so recognized in the field of educational psychology that the consensus rejects “g” and now favor’s an ever growing number of “multiple intelligences.”

A second problem is the complexity of what makes a work of art “great.”

My view is that, as I’ve stated, is one that honestly shares a unique point of view. If a person shares a perspective that is unique and honest to them, it is a valid work of art.

So, in that case, I believe there are just under 7 billion unique but equal types of “talent” in the world.

We all start with a different set of cultural values and a different social-group-identifying language but as artists, we all have the same path, to fully explore our unique perspective in the world and share it with others. And in that regard we all start in the same exact spot.

And now, let me implore you to honestly review the idea of "talent" and to consider rejecting it on these pragmatic grounds:

1. As artists we are all teachers of our brothers. And as a teacher (in the literal sense for me) I would be a scoundrel to suppose that some of my students were just not talented and couldn't be taught. Instead, a teacher should seek to teach all students and bring out their unique perspective and experiences regarding a subject.

2. It limits us as artists. Just like KTC, I've been praised for my "talent" and "intelligence" in just about every artistic endeavor I've every tried. And I've also had many teachers tell me "I have nothing to teach you." And those teachers failed me, because they failed to implore me to rise above and transcend my own "talent." "Talent" itself is a cheap thing. The only way to become an artist is to cast it off.

3. It limits our appreciation of art. You know that "untalented" musician you cant stand? Why do some people like him? You might be limiting yourself if you can't see it.

Anyway, I could go on and on and on so I'll just stop here.
Thanks for the discussion.

[Michael J. Hoag]

And finally, because I fell into the trap of debating an illusion:

The question is all wrong.

A work of art is an emergent property. It transcends the sum of all the varied aptitudes that allowed it to create itself. Every artist knows this.

So the quantity of raw "talent" of the artist is meaningless.

[William Haskins]

What made Mozart and Bach and Liszt special was this: they practiced like crazy.

Indeed, that’s what researchers studying the subject, such as Howard Gardener, have found is the most important factor in success: PRACTICE, WORK.


by this measure, there should have been dozens, if not hundreds, of contemporaries and those from subsequent generations who possessed the same passion and put in the same amount (if not more) of practice and work.

what ingredient, then, was missing that prohibited them from excelling to the same degree?

[Michael J. Hoag]

by this measure, there should have been dozens, if not hundreds, of contemporaries and those from subsequent generations who possessed the same passion and put in the same amount (if not more) of practice and work.

what ingredient, then, was missing that prohibited them from excelling to the same degree?,

This is a wonderful point. Yes, love and devotion are the most important elements, and there were likely others who possessed Mozart's love and dedication to music, but they lacked many EXPERIENCES that were likely unique to Mozart, that have nothing to do with inborn talent:

1. Leopold. Mozart's father was a relentless task master and had a great skill for composing himself. Mozart's sister was equally "talented" or some say more talented. Of course, women couldn't have careers in music.

2. Travel and study in all of the most stylish musical traditions of the era.

3. The freedom to devote his time and love to music. This alone is exceedingly rare.

In the end, what we're talking about is this:

Either there's an inborn, clear, un-learned physical/genetic component of cause of success or it's experience. If the important thing is experience, then it can be cultivated. I refuse to believe otherwise. In my universe we're all of us equal in the endeavor of truth.

[Michael J. Hoag]

Large hands?

Or small hands?

One of those must be it...

Exactly my point. These things are inconsequential when it comes to a work of art. Mozart's music transcended Mozart. It came to symbolize the aesthetic values of an age. To shrink its beauty down to the object of Mozart's talent is to diminish it, and to discount all his work, the contribution of his father and teachers and most importantly, his unique perspective in the universe.

[Michael J. Hoag]

Oh, and do you think that all the great artists who've ever lived were properly recognized for it?

Rene Fleming says: "all the greatest singers who ever lived were never recognized" or some such thing.

[Stew21]

So then, I would say that raw talent does exist, it just takes varying degrees of practice in order to polish it as a skill. The balance between how much raw talent and how much practice I would think varies per individual poet. as such, starting points for each poet will be different and the learning curve will be approached and overcome at different speeds.

[William Haskins]

Either there's an inborn, clear, un-learned physical/genetic component of cause of success or it's experience.

i find it staggering to believe that you believe in such a clear cut either/or.

In my universe we're all of us equal in the endeavor of truth.

the clearest and most succinct statement yet of your (and others') view.

i couldn't disagree more.

[Michael J. Hoag]

I was actually being facetious

I recognized the sarcasm, my game was to turn it around.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. You make a very good point.

I was moved up to the 2nd grade class in Kindergarten for reading and I remember learning to read slower and stilted to match the other kids.

It's no surprise. I spent most of my days on my grandma's lap reading the bible.

But because I grew up in a poor family in a poor neighborhood, I somehow always assumed I was dumb.

So for me, the surprise was a graduate educational psychology course on assessment, where we took a number of "IQ" tests. Lets just say that I think my tested IQ is far higher than my actual IQ.

My reasoning: I have developed a fluency for the language of tests and (to my chagrin) I've internalized the values of the social group that makes these silly tests.

There may be some small hereditary factor there, but neither that nor my score on any test predict my success in any meaningful human endeavor.

The classic example is that the poor student becomes the best teacher.

Our test scores, or vocabulary or rhythm or relative fluency in the poetic or literary style espoused by the Grand High Keepers of Art is inconsequential here. The key is to fully cultivate our unique interests and share our special and beautiful perspective. We're all the same in that. And if you commit to fully exploring that in a work of art, literature or poetry, and you watch your soul grow in the process, then you've created a great work of art. What any critic says of it is bollocks.

[LimeyDawg]

Exactly my point. These things are inconsequential when it comes to a work of art. Mozart's music transcended Mozart. It came to symbolize the aesthetic values of an age. To shrink its beauty down to the object of Mozart's talent is to diminish it, and to discount all his work, the contribution of his father and teachers and most importantly, his unique perspective in the universe.
Hmmm, I might disagree (if I knew the truth of the matter), but I'm thinking that physical traits can't be sloughed off as inconsequential. Bruce Lee was the Mozart of martial arts. He had one leg almost an inch and a half shorter than the other, which dictated his fighting style, a style around which he developed Jeet Kune Do. It allowed him an advantage other fighters didn't have. I'm wondering if this is true of Mozart, or other such geniuses. Einstein had a particularly unique brain, and I'm talking about the physical differences between his and mine (and probably yours). He had advantages none of us enjoyed. I don't think we can say that any of these folks, were they given normal traits, would have excelled. It's not like a "normal" person simply exerted himself more. There was something that gave them an evolutionary advantage.

[Godfather]

i agree completely with your last paragraph, hoag.

i think isaac's point was that he didn't spend a lot of time reading, writing or analyzing tests, yet nonetheless he excelled where others who did have time to immerse themselves in the arts, didn't excel. (correct me if i'm wrong)

[Michael J. Hoag]

Mr. Haskins, my perspective is the opposite of a black and white one. My belief is that any "Truth" we seek in most art is so subjective as to occupy an individual at a unique time and place. And every reader then extrapolates another unique "Truth" from the thing.

And so every individual is the keeper of his own truth.

As regards my statement on the nature/nurture argument, it was a qualified one. I assert that the IMPORTANT element in art is the individuals experience not some genetic "gift." And again, if experience is the key element, it can be cultivated, whether in some "taught" manner or in a natural one, as the way we learn a language.

[Michael J. Hoag]

GF-as to Issac's point:

1. Human experience is so rich and the human ability to process it so mysterious that I would not rule out some "nurture" factor in his test scores. I did not exactly "practice" reading to get good at it. I had the experience of an obsessive grandparent. What I suggest is that the individual, Issac, could have faced and overcome some problem unique to him prior to school, which prepared him for academic success.

2. I reject that test scores are an indicator of real artistic merit. They indeed show how fluently we speak a language, but not the depths of content we convey. The later is the art. The rest is just embellishment.

[Dichroic]

I see a lot of either / or statements here, and I disagree with those. To become great, one needs talent *and* work; the necessary balance of those changes depending on the field. For some fields you don't need talent at all; for others you do if you want to reach the highest levels.

I do not think an untalented child brought up by Mozart's father would have excelled to the same degree - I don't see any reason to suppose his sister *wouldn't* have a similar degree of talent, so she's not a good counterargument. On the other hand, I think any human of at least average intelligence and physical skills can learn to play piano and even to compose some works.

I actually think it's useful also to use the differentiation between talent and genius that Alcott discusses throughout Little Women; a talent for reading and manipulating words is helpful for a poet, but it won't make her another Shakespeare. I think of talent more as a negative handicap, and I see it clearly demonstrated in my husband. He doesn't have much talent for words; he'll tell you so himself. Nonetheless he writes very good prose (no idea about poetry because I've never seen him try). The difference is, he has to work a lot harder at it.

[Michael J. Hoag]

Well, thanks thanks thanks for the discussion. AW is wonderful. It was not my intention to hijack the thread, but the discussion has been immensely helpful to me.

So I find myself on the losing end of the consensus on the subject so I’ll leave off with a few hypotheticals:

1. Perhaps some of you will share the widely held belief that the ego, while an often useful concept, is not exactly the concrete thing we experience it as. To you, I ask, If “I” is largely illusion, what then has talent?

2. There is a difference between the object of our art and the way we convey it (“technique.”) The important thing is the object, some kind of truth about our own condition, and don't we all have an equal access to that?

3. “Poetic talent” looks different in different poets (Ray Carver VS Keats VS Poe...) Isn’t the word “talent” so imprecise then as to be meaningless?

But since I’ll have no consensus, let’s formulate a premise and put it to the test. To do that we’ll have to agree that:

1. “Talent” is objectively quantifiable.
2. Since any meaningful “talent” is native to a person and not a consequence of study, learning and practice, “talent” would obviously manifest prior to those factors.
3. To be meaningful, “talent” would have to predict success in an endeavor relative to the “talentless.”

But these hypothesis about talent have been well-tested across a broad field of endeavors and found to be false. So if "talent" for an endeavor can't be shown to predict successful performance in it, what's talent? What does predict success are work and practice. Better practice, better success. Here's (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/) an article that provides a starting point for the research on talent and outcome.

So if Mozart had talent, it had no correlation to the wonderful music he wrote. ;)

Anyway, cheers all and thanks again.

[Dichroic]

But since I’ll have no consensus, let’s formulate a premise and put it to the test. To do that we’ll have to agree that:

1. “Talent” is objectively quantifiable.
2. Since any meaningful “talent” is native to a person and not a consequence of study, learning and practice, “talent” would obviously manifest prior to those factors.
3. To be meaningful, “talent” would have to predict success in an endeavor relative to the “talentless.”

So if Mozart had talent, it had no correlation to the wonderful music he wrote. ;)

Anyway, cheers all and thanks again.

But I *don't* see that these follow from anything said here.
1. You can have a consensus on whether something is art without being able to quantify it in any measurable way; similarly talent. I don't think it can be measured, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
2. No. Any more than strength can manifest in the absence of things to pick up or move.
3. I would agree to this except for point #1. If you can't quantify talent you can't do anything like a linear correlation. You could treat it as a binary, get a board to agree on whether someone has it, and then find whether a 'yes' is more highly correlated than a 'no', but it would be a very difficult study to do. Even *if* we stipulate that the great geniuses of the past all had talent we have no way of testing those against people in their similar circumstances who did not have such success to see whether those did or did not have it. I suppose you could do a longitudinal study if you hada few decades to spare: assess talent in children (by consensus of a board, maybe) and then watch to see who succeeded.

[NeuroFizz]

The equation in terms of brain function is not as simple as this thread carries. Many factors complicate it. Just as one example, there is a variable (from human to human) I like to refer to as "mental quickness." Some people have the ability to make mental connections at an amazing speed, well above the average, if something like this could be accurately measured. This is a non-directed quickness, and only gains direction when it is applied to an interest or an effort of the individual. It is not what I would call talent for a given subject, but it can translate into the same excellence in that subject if the person focuses in that direction. In other words, one person who excels due to a real talent for a subject, or someone who breaks through with hard work, may find themselves in league with a person with that general mental quickness whose interest takes him/her in that same direction. This trait of mental quickness still requires training, but it comes as a "quick study," a greatly accelerated grasp and expression of the subject. This mental quickness may be behind the successes of people we consider "Renaissance people," those clever people who can excel in numerous areas of creative activity.

Yet another variable is motivation, which includes selective attention. This can also shorten a pathway to achievement and excellence in some people.

[Dichroic]

Neurofizz: I'm not sure I'd call the sort of thing a different thing from a talent. I suspect rather that what we're referring to as talents are made up of one or more of the sort of gift you describe.

[NeuroFizz]

To me, a talent is directed. You can speak of musical talent, literary talent, mathematical talent, but that's not what I'm talking about. There are people who show no such "natural" talent, but have a mental quickness (for lack of a better term) to make the necessary connections to excel in any or many of these areas should they find the motivation to get into them.

Here is an analogy that applies in general but not in perfect overlap. We have motivational states and arousal systems. Both provide that mysterious qualilty of gain setting we call "mood." I'm in the mood to do this, I'm not in the mood to do that. But on a neurobiological level, they are very different. Motivational states are directed at correcting a specific physiological need or imbalance. Hunger and thirst are good examples. We are motivated to seek water or food to correct that need. But, there are general arousal systems that tweak numerous systems but are not dedicated to any specific need or stimulus. They just up or down regulate a wide variety of systems, sometimes in a modular way and sometimes in an undirected way. So, in this scheme, a talent would be equivelant to the motivational state while what I'm discussion is more like the general arousal system. There is a huge difference. You can't say, "That person is talented. I just don't know in what." To me, that's not a proper use of the word talent, which should be directed, not general.

Maybe if this person tuned into a creative activity and developed that excellence you would then say he/she has talent for that area, but you would have to say the same thing about the not-so-quick person who worked really hard and achieved excellence in that more gradual way. That would then defeat the idea of any kind of innate talent.

[Dichroic]

Of course I'm not saying that talent doesn't exist, but perhaps at times when we define something as a talent (which can often or not be taught - that person is a talented swimmer = natural aptitude plus training) we are actually meaning that someone has a gift - a natural innate ability to excel if they choose to with less effort than someone not as gifted.

This is why it's sometimes so hard to talk with words: they're so imprecise! If we define our terms as Neurofizz and you do here - and I agree that it makes a lot of sense - then perversely I end up disagreeing with the point I've been defending in my last several posts!

Because in this case I actually *don't* believe in talent in a specific field, as NF defines it, at least not for a field as complex as writing. I believe in gifts, some of which mesh well with a particular field, and which with hard work can take a person farther than someone un-gifted would get with the same work.

Take rowing, as I so often do. I'm 5'2", barely, with lots of quick-twitch muscle fibers ad few slow-twitch ones. I'm reasonably strong, but building endurance comes hard to me. I have to work three times as hard to be *almost* as fast as a skilled rower who is taller with good native VO2 capacity and who builds endurance easily. Maybe if I work five times as hard I can be just as fast. On the other hand, it's a sport that requires a lot of precise skill and practice. Doesn't matter how fit you are, how tall, strong or durable; if you haven't done lots of training and practicing, then I can row right past you (probably as you fall in the water). That's how I think of even more intellectual talents, or gifts if you prefer to call them that.

[Dichroic]

Drysdale is a gifted rower, but so is Waddell. They both have exceptional training ethics. The only thing separating them really is about ten years in age (and Waddell's heart condition, which spiked in the last of their best of 3 series to clinch the spot). It captured the nation for a month or two.

I'm gonna diverge to bodybuilders for a minute. Not all bodybuilders are equal - even at the top level. And every bodybuilder (and i'm ignoring the drugs here - disgusts me, that does) has strong areas. Some body-builders have no trouble building and defining their chest, some their calves, some their biceps. And they can bring other aspects of their body up to a similar level, but they have to work three, four times as hard on the other areas.


Re rowers: Waddell is a good example of someone gifted, seeing as he's over 2 meters tall - tall even a rower. It was very funny hearing Xeno Muller, who competed against Waddell in a couple of Olympics, referring to himself as small by comparison. (Xeno's "only" about 6'3" / 190 cm, though he's massive - much broader than Waddell.)

Re bodybuilders: I think an even better comparison is all the young guys who lift and lift and can never manage to put on any bulk.

There really are some people who, even with training, can never seem to reach even an average level. In music, they're the ones who are tonedeaf. Then there are the ones who can get to a level of proficiency with less work than it takes most people. Then are the ones who combine gifts and very hard work to get to the highest level.

And (I'm not at all sure about this) I think there may be a very few, the Mozarts, Shakespeares, and Einsteins, who have something going on the rest of us can't even fathom. Richard Feynman's autobiographical books are the best glimpses I know of into someone whose mind just works a different way. But even for them, there's no denying that hard work is essential.

I share your appreciation of diversity. One thing that's a problem is when teachers don't understand that different people need to be taught differently. I still like the idea of handing budding poets an exercise to write about something concrete (not instead of anything else, just an exercise in addition to whatever else they want to write) but enough people here have pointed out that would only work if said newbies also had the freedom to decide whether to take the example.