- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 6,670
When I was in my teens I was considered a pretty good artist, mainly at still-life drawing. It was one of my main hobbies, after reading. I produced tons of work, all very detailed and life-like.
Looking back though, I’m not so sure I was naturally very talented at it at all.
Sure, I produced some great drawings, very realistic drawings, but it took me multiple hours just to finish a small piece – I wasn’t churning them out with ease by any means.
I would sit and stare at my subject matter (usually a picture of an animal or plant I thought was cool, in a magazine or book) and study the lines, the shading, the negative space—everything that made the image what it was. Then I would painstakingly replicate it, pencil on paper.
Was that so special? Maybe so, maybe not. All I did was spend more time at it than most. The result was “appearing to be good at it”.
Fast forward a couple decades. Now I would probably be considered by many to be “pretty good at bodybuilding”. I’ve won some shows, blah blah blah.
It’s the exact same effect though – I’m not naturally talented at all. It’s just attention to detail; countless hours (years) spent getting it right.
Perhaps my talent is really just “being a little bit nuts”.
Long story short, if you want to be good at something, really really good at it, you have to immerse yourself in it. You have to be relentless in your attention to detail, and your code of conduct. If it takes three hours to get one small line right, that’s what you do.
Anything less and you’ll remain average.
Looking back though, I’m not so sure I was naturally very talented at it at all.
Sure, I produced some great drawings, very realistic drawings, but it took me multiple hours just to finish a small piece – I wasn’t churning them out with ease by any means.
I would sit and stare at my subject matter (usually a picture of an animal or plant I thought was cool, in a magazine or book) and study the lines, the shading, the negative space—everything that made the image what it was. Then I would painstakingly replicate it, pencil on paper.
Was that so special? Maybe so, maybe not. All I did was spend more time at it than most. The result was “appearing to be good at it”.
Fast forward a couple decades. Now I would probably be considered by many to be “pretty good at bodybuilding”. I’ve won some shows, blah blah blah.
It’s the exact same effect though – I’m not naturally talented at all. It’s just attention to detail; countless hours (years) spent getting it right.
Perhaps my talent is really just “being a little bit nuts”.
Long story short, if you want to be good at something, really really good at it, you have to immerse yourself in it. You have to be relentless in your attention to detail, and your code of conduct. If it takes three hours to get one small line right, that’s what you do.
Anything less and you’ll remain average.