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

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Just for the record, here I am agreeing with nospam. The propensity
to be good at something - which you might call "natural talent" is
ingrained in people. Constant practice may improve one's skills in
something, but those with natural talent will need less practice and
be able to do whatever it is intuitively.

While "intuitively" is the wrong word completely, the above is a pretty normal
reasoning from people that may look upon skilled people and explain it in a way
that excludes themselves. "He's good with numbers", "She's got an eye for
portraits", "He's got the rhythm in him".

But that's just not right. No one is "born" with the rhythm, or born with piano
skills. Its all pursued interest. It should all be "He likes numbers", "She's
always enjoyed to draw portraits" etc. Because that's what it is. What any given
person will find interesting and worth pursuing is a product of their environment
and their surroundings. Three year old Mozart wouldn't have been a composer by
eight had his father been a plumber in the slum of Chicago in 1983. Your scene is
*everything* when it comes to personality development.

In some cases, no amount of practice will make one good at certain
things.

"Practice" is but one part of the equation, "interest" is the other. Talent is a
myth - skill is *pursued interest*. The "pursued" part is about practice, the
"interest" part is about, well, interest. Practicing the piano against your will
because your father says so won't make you a great composer.

Barely competent, maybe, but not really good.



--
Sandman

On May 19, 2015, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 19 May 2015 14:13:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On May 19, 2015, Mayayana wrote
(in ):

Just for you, here is a Picasso I shot at the Munson-Williams-Procter
Institute in Utica, NY. Interesting place to visit.
http://adobe.ly/1JXRJSJ

It turns out the real link is he
https://assets.adobe.com/link/1a9456...7-362d6ce3b560
Why would you shorten that?

I didn’t shorten it Adobe provides the shortened link for public sharing
bydefault. There is no long url option.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...enshot_166.jpg

In any case, thanks, but I see nothing on that
page at all.

That is your problem, other folks don’t seem to have an issue.

It's almost entirely obfuscated script.

I have never seen that. I have no idea of what you are doing to provoke
that
sort of failure.

I avoid allowing script in general, especially avoiding
obfuscated script, and wouldn't allow either to
run on Adobe's site.

Then don’t bother. I certainly am not creating any odd script to sabotage
your system.

It could take days to decipher exactly what the
script is doing and what other sites it's contacting,
if that's even possible. And all that just to display
an image!

That is what happens when you use MS Outlook Express as a Usenet client, it
isn’t. As to whatever else you are doing to prevent that link opening in
aninternet browser I have no idea.

I don’t believe the other Windows users in this room, such as PeterN,
Eric
Stevens, or Tony have a problem.

I see a photo.

Yup! I would expect nothing less.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

| https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_166.jpg
|

That link's fine. Thanks, and sorry
for the trouble.

| Then don't bother. I certainly am not creating any odd script to sabotage
| your system.
|

I know that *you're* not writing any script.
I just mean that I don't enable script in general
for security and privacy reasons. And many sites
now write their webpages as obfuscated script,
which is to say they write the script in a semi-
encrypted manner to hide its operations.

I don't mean to be uncooperative. I know
script is an unintelligible issue for most people.
But script is the critical functionality for nearly
all online risks, and there simply isn't any need
for it most of the time. So I don't enable it.
I guess it's a little like having a gluten-free friend.
You might think they're nuts, but if you want
them to come to dinner then you'll need to
serve tacos rather than pasta.

|
| That is what happens when you use MS Outlook Express as a Usenet client,
it
| isn't. As to whatever else you are doing to prevent that link opening in
an
| internet browser I have no idea.
|

It opens fine. I didn't click in OE. I pasted the
URL into Pale Moon. Pale Moon had no trouble
going to the page. What I was saying was that I don't
see a webpage once I get there. I just see white.
Browsers display webpage code. The Adobe page
doesn't really have any webpage code. It's almost
all script, which is executable code. In other words,
the page is not really a webpage at all. It's basically
a small software program which, if allowed to run,
will create and load a webpage. If you visit the site
with script disabled you'll see what I mean.

On 18/05/2015 13:16, Sandman wrote:
In article , Rich A wrote:

Rich A:
There is no argument, some painter and sculptors are gifted

Sandman:
Only if they're autistic. Skill isn't something people are born
with, skill is born from an interest, and that interest means you
do it, a lot. Like Bob Ross said: "Talent is pursued interest.
Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do". The "born
with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't
practiced enough. -- Sandman

You don't seriously think an Adams, or Steichen or Michaelangelo
could be taught to be as good as they were if they didn't have
in-born talent?

I don't "think", I know. There is no "in-born" photographic talent. It doesn't
exist.

I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of
training.

Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is that it takes 10,000 hours of
practice to excel at a given task. The problem is having an interest that leads
you to invest 10,000 hours into that.


I'm with Rich and Floyd. I must have spent 10,000 hours trying to play
the guitar over the past 50 years, and I'm still rubbish.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

My claim is that if one person is more skilled at a given task
than another, it is because he has practiced it more, which in
turn is a result from a more eager interest in said task. Not
because he has a "born" ability to paint masterpieces or a "born"
ability to play the piano.

bull****. some people have natural talents and others do not and it
has absolutely nothing to do with practice.

Of course it does.

nope.

if it did, there would be more einsteins, picassos, pavarottis and
ansel adams.

And there are.

you're delusional.

but assuming there are, why hasn't anyone heard of them?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Then don't bother. I certainly am not creating any odd script to sabotage
| your system.
|

I know that *you're* not writing any script.
I just mean that I don't enable script in general
for security and privacy reasons. And many sites
now write their webpages as obfuscated script,
which is to say they write the script in a semi-
encrypted manner to hide its operations.

what does the tin foil hat website do?

I don't mean to be uncooperative. I know
script is an unintelligible issue for most people.
But script is the critical functionality for nearly
all online risks, and there simply isn't any need
for it most of the time. So I don't enable it.
I guess it's a little like having a gluten-free friend.
You might think they're nuts, but if you want
them to come to dinner then you'll need to
serve tacos rather than pasta.

get gluten-free pasta.
http://www.barilla.com/gluten-free-pasta
http://www.ronzoniglutenfree.com/

| That is what happens when you use MS Outlook Express as a Usenet client,
it
| isn't. As to whatever else you are doing to prevent that link opening in
an
| internet browser I have no idea.
|

It opens fine. I didn't click in OE. I pasted the
URL into Pale Moon. Pale Moon had no trouble
going to the page. What I was saying was that I don't
see a webpage once I get there. I just see white.
Browsers display webpage code. The Adobe page
doesn't really have any webpage code. It's almost
all script, which is executable code. In other words,
the page is not really a webpage at all. It's basically
a small software program which, if allowed to run,
will create and load a webpage. If you visit the site
with script disabled you'll see what I mean.

your loss.

On May 19, 2015, Mayayana wrote
(in ):


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_166.jpg

That link's fine. Thanks, and sorry
for the trouble.

So, you don’t have an issue with Dropbox?

Then don't bother. I certainly am not creating any odd script to sabotage
your system.

I know that *you're* not writing any script.
I just mean that I don't enable script in general
for security and privacy reasons. And many sites
now write their webpages as obfuscated script,
which is to say they write the script in a semi-
encrypted manner to hide its operations.

You are way too paranoid.

I don't mean to be uncooperative. I know
script is an unintelligible issue for most people.
But script is the critical functionality for nearly
all online risks, and there simply isn't any need
for it most of the time. So I don't enable it.
I guess it's a little like having a gluten-free friend.
You might think they're nuts, but if you want
them to come to dinner then you'll need to
serve tacos rather than pasta.

That is what happens when you use MS Outlook Express as a Usenet client, it
isn't. As to whatever else you are doing to prevent that link opening in an
internet browser I have no idea.

It opens fine. I didn't click in OE. I pasted the
URL into Pale Moon.

I think I see your problem.

Pale Moon had no troublegoing to the page.

Going to the page isn’t the issue. See what is intended to be shared, and
is visible in …er orthodox web browsers is the point.

What I was saying was that I don’tsee a webpage once I get there. I just
see white.

Obviously.

Browsers display webpage code. The Adobe page
doesn't really have any webpage code. It's almost
all script, which is executable code. In other words,
the page is not really a webpage at all. It's basically
a small software program which, if allowed to run,
will create and load a webpage. If you visit the site
with script disabled you'll see what I mean.

More trouble than it is worth.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On May 19, 2015, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In ,
wrote:

My claim is that if one person is more skilled at a given task
than another, it is because he has practiced it more, which in
turn is a result from a more eager interest in said task. Not
because he has a "born" ability to paint masterpieces or a "born"
ability to play the piano.

bull****. some people have natural talents and others do not and it
has absolutely nothing to do with practice.

Of course it does.

nope.

if it did, there would be more einsteins, picassos, pavarottis and
ansel adams.

And there are.

you're delusional.

but assuming there are, why hasn't anyone heard of them?

Everybody has heard of them.

You have never heard of Richard Feynman? Beniamino Gigli? Caruso? Placido
Domingo? Jose Carreras? Edward Weston? Dorothea Lange? Imogen Cunningham?
Henri Cartier-Bresson? Modigliani? Alfred Stieglitz? there are a whole bunch
more you know.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

if it did, there would be more einsteins, picassos, pavarottis and
ansel adams.

And there are.

you're delusional.

but assuming there are, why hasn't anyone heard of them?

Everybody has heard of them.

You have never heard of Richard Feynman? Beniamino Gigli? Caruso? Placido
Domingo? Jose Carreras? Edward Weston? Dorothea Lange? Imogen Cunningham?
Henri Cartier-Bresson? Modigliani? Alfred Stieglitz? there are a whole bunch
more you know.

none are the same as einstein or picasso.

why hasn't someone 'practiced' to be the next steve jobs?

On May 19, 2015, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In news.com,
wrote:

if it did, there would be more einsteins, picassos, pavarottis and
ansel adams.

And there are.

you're delusional.

but assuming there are, why hasn't anyone heard of them?

Everybody has heard of them.

You have never heard of Richard Feynman? Beniamino Gigli? Caruso? Placido
Domingo? Jose Carreras? Edward Weston? Dorothea Lange? Imogen Cunningham?
Henri Cartier-Bresson? Modigliani? Alfred Stieglitz? there are a whole
bunch
more you know.

none are the same as einstein or picasso.

Take another look at those names. Just consider Feynman&Modigliani.
Feynman took the Special Theory of Relativity to the next step with quantum
physics.
Modigliani and Picasso were contemporaries following similar paths.
Unfortunately, Modigliani died at 35 in 1920 and Picasso went on to be an
eccentric, dirty old man dying at 91 in 1973.

why hasn't someone 'practiced' to be the next steve jobs?

They are trying, they are trying, and the Woz is watching the show.
For now the closest to a modern day Jobs is Elon Musk.



--

Regards,
Savageduck