Originally posted by AKIron
I would argue that the ability to learn anything is an innate talent. I don't mean that everyone can learn anything, but that anyone's ablility to learn at all is innate and appropriately called talent.
Fair enough. Still, it doesn't contradict my point. You could teach anyone who is able to digest formal education to be an engineer, so long as the student is willing to be disciplined. Its all book-learning. Art, OTOH, requires creative talent that cannot be taught. There is technique involved, which of course can be taught, but there's a difference between technique and the ability to create.
My personal for instance is musicianship. For high school wood shop, I wanted a project that nobody else had done. I built a guitar. It was beautiful, and musician friends of mine seemed surprised that it was actually a competent instrument. That was an example of engineering.
Then I decided I should learn to play it. A couple of years of that convinced me that while I might eventually practice enough to be technically able to play well by rote, I would never ever be able to create music. Whatever "it" is just isn't in me.
Writing is another example. I'm literate and could easily be a journalist or an author of technical manuals - but I could never imagine stories the likes of the ones people like Heinlen, Hemingway, even Grisham do.
Creativity isn't a part of my soul, and no amount of teaching will ever make it so. I believe that's true for people in general. Its why I appreciate art for what it is - innate talent.
