Kudos on a splendid essay! I disagree with you slightly---about practice. Ten years? I just celebrated the 80th anniversary pf learning contract bridge,, one of my four main creative interests (though certainly not the most important). As has often happened, when a new idea came to me right after the celebration, I thought, "Why didn't I think of this 30 years ago?" I really can't say, but I can say why I thought of it yesterday: an email from a friendly critic who reread an article I had written 30 years earlier, suggesting what he thought was (marginally) better, As I fell asleep Tuesday night---or was it already Wednesday at the time?---I thought of a way that looks much better than either my 30-year-old solution to a problem or my critic's marginally better proposal. There's a social element that conduces to creativity---other people who ask hard questions or comment critically on one's previous work. I try always to remember to thank those who write to me (nowadays email me) with their questions and disagreements.
I appreciate this article very much. Simply living life, you may notice how talent seems to matter a lot. I work with children and their families and notice how certain kids struggle despite having supportive and well-regulated parents and an environment that is loving and conducive to emotional regulation and growth. On the other hand, kids with less supportive environment may very much thrive. I don't mean to reduce this to a few variables and I haven't looked at the data for this particular issue. But it does seem quite self-evident that talent matters a lot.
You suggested that a creative person may produce X and that X may be loved in one generation only to be rejected in the next generation. This is crucial. It makes me wonder whether a new concept is also needed to add another nuance to what you describe: received talent.
While you suggest that talent is a combination of nature-nurture-effort, and you suggest the cultural dimensions of talent (read received talent), I wonder whether your definition of talent needs to take further into account the cultural dimension. Is your definition universal and timeless or an expression of our culture or anti-culture?
I ask this because much of the research your present describe reception as an important dimension. For example, "the most lauded creators were those who took the least time than the average to acquire the necessary expertise." Reception matters here for example. Seems to be an assumption in the argument.
In a nutshell, does received talent matter to this discussion?
Beautiful article. Many of your points hold true for my own experience as a creative marketer, as well as to my experience married to a creative director and parenting two creative children!
In addition to that I would like to argue that we are very poor at identifying talent and equally poor at predicting who will reach the top of a given field..
“...in reality, it's impossible for creators to know completely whether their new idea or product will be well received.”
Absolutely true.
It wasn’t well received, but I solved our/their problem in 2012. In 2017, the solution, an agency hack, led to them showing me the door. In 2024, I realize it solves a bigger problem I wasn’t even trying to solve.
Dear Scott.
Kudos on a splendid essay! I disagree with you slightly---about practice. Ten years? I just celebrated the 80th anniversary pf learning contract bridge,, one of my four main creative interests (though certainly not the most important). As has often happened, when a new idea came to me right after the celebration, I thought, "Why didn't I think of this 30 years ago?" I really can't say, but I can say why I thought of it yesterday: an email from a friendly critic who reread an article I had written 30 years earlier, suggesting what he thought was (marginally) better, As I fell asleep Tuesday night---or was it already Wednesday at the time?---I thought of a way that looks much better than either my 30-year-old solution to a problem or my critic's marginally better proposal. There's a social element that conduces to creativity---other people who ask hard questions or comment critically on one's previous work. I try always to remember to thank those who write to me (nowadays email me) with their questions and disagreements.
Yours,
Danny
Great read, thanks for sharing, and thanks for all the additional reading links.
I like what you said about downplaying talent being equivalent to downplaying someone's potential. I think the two are inextricably linked.
I would love to hear your view on what potential is, and any thoughts you might have on measuring it?
I appreciate this article very much. Simply living life, you may notice how talent seems to matter a lot. I work with children and their families and notice how certain kids struggle despite having supportive and well-regulated parents and an environment that is loving and conducive to emotional regulation and growth. On the other hand, kids with less supportive environment may very much thrive. I don't mean to reduce this to a few variables and I haven't looked at the data for this particular issue. But it does seem quite self-evident that talent matters a lot.
You suggested that a creative person may produce X and that X may be loved in one generation only to be rejected in the next generation. This is crucial. It makes me wonder whether a new concept is also needed to add another nuance to what you describe: received talent.
While you suggest that talent is a combination of nature-nurture-effort, and you suggest the cultural dimensions of talent (read received talent), I wonder whether your definition of talent needs to take further into account the cultural dimension. Is your definition universal and timeless or an expression of our culture or anti-culture?
I ask this because much of the research your present describe reception as an important dimension. For example, "the most lauded creators were those who took the least time than the average to acquire the necessary expertise." Reception matters here for example. Seems to be an assumption in the argument.
In a nutshell, does received talent matter to this discussion?
Beautiful article. Many of your points hold true for my own experience as a creative marketer, as well as to my experience married to a creative director and parenting two creative children!
In addition to that I would like to argue that we are very poor at identifying talent and equally poor at predicting who will reach the top of a given field..
“...in reality, it's impossible for creators to know completely whether their new idea or product will be well received.”
Absolutely true.
It wasn’t well received, but I solved our/their problem in 2012. In 2017, the solution, an agency hack, led to them showing me the door. In 2024, I realize it solves a bigger problem I wasn’t even trying to solve.
Note to self: Don’t give up.