In article , Mayayana wrote:

Mozart composing as a young child.... must we assume he had a nanny
who forced him to practice piano 8 hours per day from the age of 3
months in order to fit your theory?

Of course not. Since we don't know the details of Mozarts exposure to his
fathers work, it's hard to make any actual conclusions. His sister got piano
lessons from his father when Mozart was three years old and we know that Mozart
learned simultaneously, and at a greater speed than his sister (= greater
interest).

When Mozart was 8 (interestingly, five years later. Rings a bell?), he was
"tested" with a complicated composition.

Of course, we don't know if he "excelled" at it, the testers says he played it
in a "masterly level", which certainly suggests it, but he was only 8 and
someone testing him could quite possibly just be expressing astonishment of his
level versus his age.

But looking at the recorded history of Mozart, it is clear that he poured a
*lot* of time into playing when really young. That time amounts to training. he
didn't sit down at the piano at age 3 and compose a five piece opera.

DaVinci's genius in drawing, painting and engineering.... He just
happened to be "interested" in those things?

Of course.

And where did that "interest" come from? If it struck
him then why aren't at least 1 in 100 people a Da Vinci?

Because pouring that amount of time into an interest isn't feasible for a lot
of people that have to pay bills, raise kids, etc etc. I'm sure you're aware of
the fact that a lot of great artists lived their entire lives as really really
poor people, where they had to sacrifice a *lot* to follow their interest.

And you're not interested in the question of Art?

Not as it relates to this subject, no.

To my mind that's far more interesting than skill

Ok...

yet you didn't address that point
at all.

Since it has nothing to do with "Photographic ability", really. Or if it does,
it was poorly expressed by Rich, the OP.

If someone practices photography for years and develops an
ability to take exactly the picture they want in nearly all cases,
yet those pictures don't resonate with viewers, what's the value of
their expertise?

Ask them, not me. Not everyone values their efforts by the judgement of
viewers.

The original question was about "good photographic
ability". Whether or not people articulate their thoughts about Art,
I think we all assume that art plays a part in good photography.

Not necessarily, but I suppose it could be interpreted that way. My comments
have concerned the "ability" and "skill" part only.

But I'm not surprised you didn't address it. Artfulness is something
that can't be measured with scientific instruments and can't be
taught in terms of practicing techniques. It's a wrench in the works
of your theory.

I have not expressed any "theory" of mine here.

--
Sandman