Oh for sure.  I totally believe in the ability to constantly improve and learn.  As far as I'm concerned if I ever reach 90 years old I still want to be learning stuff and improving my abilities where possible (probably not something like the long jump or wrestling!).

I just mean that we all start at a different point and we will all hit a different ceiling at some point.  For example I find Einstein's work facinating, but I could study for the rest of my life and never reach a point equal to what he hit when he published his General Theory of Relativity (I know, he's another top of the tree example!).

I think no-one should feel they can't aim for something, I just think equally it's sensible to realistic about what your own upper limits might be as well - we simply can't all be Kubricks, Einsteins and Picassos and no amout of effort will enable us to equal them - not because they were "better" in some sinister superior way, simply because chance happened to gift them with certain abilities that enabled them to excel to a level not just above average but at a peak that couldn't be achieved without their innate talents.

Love the feedback and ideas BTW.  This is rapidly becoming my favourite thread in a long time - no bitching about graphics or 360 vs PS3 or how Alan Wake is going to be the best game technically or no it's not God of War 3 easily beats it, etc. just some interesting discussion with lots of good ideas and thoughts.

When it's like this I really appreciate the internet and the freedom for discourse it provides.

EDIT: BTW when you said "The arts are about what is being human" I couldn't agree more.  That is one of the key elements for me in any experience of art.

Completely agree with bolded, many top musicians, Fritz Kreisler, Louis Armstrong have stated numerous times "I'm luckiest man alive", I find it most controversial with Louis's life considering both his parents left him at an extremely young age, and his mother was a prostitute, but that only shows Louis knew how special and lucky he was to be born with his qualities.

Robert Fripp says when he first picked up a guitar he was tone deaf and could barely tune the thing. Now look at him. He teaches his own guitar class with his own invented tunings, and he's (IMHO) one of the greatest guitarists of the 20th century.

And then there's jerks like Paul McCartney, who can't even read music but can write a song like "Yesterday" in his sleep, do backwards tape loops for "Tomorrow Never Knows," play every instrument on some of his solo albums, and put together the "Golden Slumbers Medley."


This is definitely my favorite thread. Thanks for all the great discussion on both sides everybody.

How can someone who cannot speak say something?

Helen Keller couldn't speak, see, or hear, and she wrote books.

Stephen Hawking can't speak or even move, and he writes books, he narrated a documentary, and he was even in a Star Trek episode.

Interesting thought, but does he say how easily guitar itself came to him? I have students that are pretty tone-deaf at first, but within a few months, can at least partially hear what they're doing (I teach trumpet/brass and piano). And even moreso with guitar, the more you play, and th more you tune, the easier it gets to hear the differences between notes at close frequencies. 

I think this is different from raw talent. I know of musicians with perfect pitch that are very mediocre musicians. In the end, all that matters is reaching people. Regardless of how amazing a person's ear is, if their music doesn't reach people, it means nothing.

Haha, I've spent a lot of time writing music. In college, I mostly wrote jazz pieces. Big band, small group, whatever I wanted. I actually started working on a full big band + orchestral piece but that ended up scaring me so I ran away. But with some songs, I'd spend hours and hours and hours, and I might get some good feedback from people. This one song I wrote took about 5 minutes, and every time I play it, I get amazing feedback from it. Actually, I've written half of a song in my sleep as well, I suck at finishing lyrics though. That's just how music can be sometimes. Time/effort invested =/= quality of product.

Given that even motorcycle maintenace has been dubbed as a form of art, I can't see why videogames and playing videogames can't be an art.

I would go ahead that playing videogames as well should be seen as a form of art - I mean just check the Sim City 3000 winning thread on this forum!

Actually, it's almost ironic that you mention Louis Armstrong. My teacher used to tell me stories about him about how he literally blew out his lips. Him and Freddie Hubbard both, though Louis mostly recovered. Especially if you're talking about trumpet, sooo many trumpet players (myself included) use bad technique in some way, even some of the greats. Very few trumpet players play with the minimum required pressure, most push, at least a little bit. Freddie and Louis both used a LOT of pressure, which really puts a burden on the lips. Louis though was a genius, he was able to overcome his problems with his lips, Freddie was not. 

My point here is that talent is a fickle b****. She can give you all sorts of things, but she can take them away as well. This isn't as much of an issue in classical, though there are is a reason that most principal trumpet players can't do it for more than 10-15 years, unless you are Adolph Herseth (trumpet god). But if you are talking about jazz (or anything non-classical I suppose, in terms of western styles), plenty of players rely on some bad habits to propel their talent.

But what I'm seeing from the conversation between the two of you, is that you guys mostly agree. With hard work, you can achieve a certain level, but you need the talent to go beyond that. Personally though, I just consider talent a time-saver. My teacher has a saying, with determination, dedication, and desire, you can do anything. The 3 D's he called them. With all 3 of those things, you will enjoy what you do, work hard at it, and find the proper guidance to propel yourself. 

My teacher also used to tell my stories about Wynton Marsalis practicing breathing exercises we were taught for 8-12 hours a day when he was younger. He may have exaggeratedbut the point is there, even the talented have to work hard to get towards the top. 

Edit: And further, just on the exact topic of creating art, skill is not a necessity, skill is just a means. It's all about reaching people. An amateur artist may be able to create more compelling and moving art than an artist that has be practicing/working/painting/sculpting/playing for 10-20-30-40+ years. And it's not always about talent, sometimes it's more a sort of luck, or wisdom, to find something that reaches people. To me, art is about reaching people and moving them in some form, skill/talent isn't needed for that, so yes, I believe any living person can be an artist of some form. Talent can help though.

@Reasonable: Thanks. Sometimes i even surprise myself.

I should have been more specific on what i meant by rules.
Naturally the rules of a medium or a genre are challenged, bent, changed all the time. If we think about videogames, for example the entrance of cinematic games made some new rules into videogames, just like MMO's or life sims did, or more recently, games like Brain Training and Wii Fit where your achievement in the game effects your real life.

But what i was talking about was certain rules of a certain game/movie/book, that the makers set in them.
Think about the three Matrix movies, where the rules kept changing. The first movie was good and consistent, and it was a fresh take in "we're all just cattle to be harvested". And the movie ended to a new rule: Neo became invincible.

Starting from the second movie, it was just breaking the rules and making exceptions to rules made in the first one.

Every game of football has the same rules, but just because you score in basketball and golf, doesn't mean the two sports have anything in common.

When a developer creates a game, the dev creates rules for the game just aswell. Donkey Kong and Killzone have very different set of rules, just like Wii Music and Kabuki Quantum Fighter.

The rules itself are in the content and what's allowed to do with it.

I think the Picasso example fit the best what i was thinking about. Though, i don't disagree with your Kubrik and Welles examples either.

On a side note, one big reason for Picasso coming famous, was that he did business exceptionally with his art.

I talk about creative guys largely because i don't see a big difference in principle between an engineer on R&D department inventing new products and a painter painting paintings by his/her own.

We could think about Leonardo as an example of this, who wasn't just painter but an inventor as well.

Part of me wonders if it's all right to accept a sense of accomplishment as part of an artistic experience - games are a medium that requires effort, and I still hold that if there is any artistic merit to them then effort, the drive to accomplish some goal, is at least one criteria by which the experience can be measured.

Take something like the first Super Mario Bros. (because it's the easiest to reference for me) - I only beat the game in earnest for the first time last year. It takes a tremendous and intimate familiarity with the game and the way it works in order to beat it, and you have to be able to circumvent a lot of challenges. In a way, the game trains you almost solely for your run through the final level, with Hammer Bros. and spinning fire sticks everywhere - not to mention Bowser.

When I finally beat it, I had a sort of euphoric feeling that cam not just from having completed a challenge, but that I had internalized the mechanics necessary to beat the game, as if I had actually learned something in conquering it. When I play the game, the way that I think and operate is intrinsically changed, in a way that is more easily identifiable than with other hard games. Could a game's ability to elicit effort, to train a person to be able to experience the whole thing, be taken as one of the design elements necessary for critical analysis?