I hate hate HATE having more vision than I actually have artistic talent. The things I draw/write are never up to the cool ideas that went into them. I suspect if I had more talent than vision, I wouldn't find it particularly upsetting; I'd just draw tons and tons of puppies and naked women or whatever cliche I ended up with.

But, really, if you look at it that way, I'll take vision over talent any day. Masochism, I guess.

*nod*

I seem to have more vision than talent for various things, and it drives me up a wall, because I can see how to do things, I just can't do them. So others step in, and even if they ask for my input, the end result is never quite what I had in mind. Frustrating.

And, you know, I end up getting graded on the end result, too, for good or ill.

Both are equally as bad, I think. It sucks to have the talent, but absolutely no ideas. Or worse, have both talent and vision, but absolutely NO patience to make the two match up. I can visualize what I want to do. I can do it (I know, because I've done it before, countless times). But I rush through, trying to get to the end result, and end up with something considerably less than what I wanted.

And then I remind myself that every time I have managed to get it right, it's taken me weeks to do so. And then I say to myself, "No, I don't think I want to do this today."

You have NO idea how much I can relate to this!

Hrm. Actually, you've read my journal, so you may. ;)

I labored over this deceptively simple quiz. What I decided, in the end, was that talents can often be taught. It may take you longer than others, but if you go to enough art classes, you can, in theory, learn the skills you need.

Vision, on the other hand, is much more esoteric. How do you learn inspiration, passion. What class could really teach you to find your muse or whatever you want to call it?

Fun quiz! Thank you!

those were my thoughts exactly. Through dedicated effort & patience I beleive talent can be learned. Vision on the other hand.... seems you either have it or you don't.
One can certainly improve one's vision a bit, through external stimulation and "creative exercizes" (take the Creative Whack Pack as an example). If the spark isn't there the work is going to be simplly derivative. Take a look at all the Chahule immatators in glass art right now (pet peve, moving on).

Try having the capacity to write, and being utterly unable to come up with a single thing worth commiting to print.

That's kind of shere my answers came out of... I've written some things that I am really proud of, but over the last couple of years I've discovered that I'm a decent craftsman-like hack writer... Which is to say, given a deadline and a theme I can reliably crank out acceptable articles or whatever, and it will be clean copy and my editors will be happy with me. But it isn't anything more than that.

I don't know that I *can't* write things that are more inherently worthwhile, but sometimes I feel like it's just so comfortable to do what I know is safe and adequate.

Perhaps I'm not much of an artist, but it seems like a false dichotomy to me. Sure, there are plenty of examples of flawlessly executed, yet soulless works of "art." And conversely, there is art that is amateurish in execution, but has real expression to it. However, I think everyone has vision and everyone has some form of raw talent. Skills are taught and learned. I don't think one develops (serious) artistic skills without changing oneself enough to change the internal vision.