Do you consider yourself to be talented or skilled? (and at what?) Both? Neither?
Would you rather be admired for your talent or yor skill? Why?
What do you view as the distinction between talent and skill?
Nature vs. nurture. Talent is what you have naturally (though it may be developed or left to wither). Skill(s) can be learned and developed with practice.
IMAO, a talent means you have a knack for something, which makes learning/performing whatever it is easier. Skill is something learned.
I may not have talent to be an auto mechanic, but I can learn the skills and be proficient. It’s harder to do that, however.
The best situation is talent plus skill. That means you’re proficient, and like what you do.
Skill. I can draw reasonably well because I’ve practiced a lot, and I have a drive to improve myself.
If there’s anything genetic involved, it’s very general, like visual acuity or good spacial skills. I don’t think there’s a specific “drawing gene”.
I like this description. This question was inspired by a friend who is “skilled” at sewing, basketmaking, quilting, etc., but claims to have no talent whatsoever. Aside from not believing her, I’ve been trying to figure out why it bugs me that she denies having talent so vehemently. And I think at least part of it is that her placing so much emphasis on skill over talent makes me think she’s proficient, but she doesn’t enjoy it much.
I, on the other hand, recognize that what I mostly have is patience and a willingness to use my time to do something many people find tedious, and so don’t mind those aspects of my personality being called “talent”. (Note: This particularily refers to doing counted cross stitch. It’s not difficult, in general, although I guess that goes back to the whole bit where I’m either talented or skilled so it seems easy to me.)
Thudlow Boink,
True, but not very interesting.
cozuma,
So for you, using the word skill notes that your drawing ability is the result of effort on your part. Makes sense to me.
Recent research seems to indicate that there is no talent - only learned skills in the right environment.
From How to be a genius New Scientist (15 September 2006)
A similar article from 18 February 2008 - Hard graft, not genes, creates musical genius
Si
To address the specific questions of the OP, I consider myself to be talented in several creative areas- writing, art, and music. I consider myself to be more talented in art. But…
That might be because I’m more skilled at art. Or rather, I’ve spent the bulk of my creative energy on developing my natural talent.
I don’t want to be admired for my talent (not skill), because to a large degree it is easy for me. Like, don’t admire me for falling down a lot, because my really terrible balance makes that pretty easy for me. Certainly, I see people all the time who are talented and/or skilled in areas I wish I were talented and/or skilled in, but I don’t view them as gods because of it. I’m confident that with enough dedication and training, I can become proficient at almost anything.
That, IMO, makes a big difference. Barring some physical or mental impairment, I think anyone can do anything reasonably well. Even I, with enough yoga and dance classes, can train my body not to lose its balance all the time.
So, I’d rather be admired for my skill. That implies some amount of hard work, and that is admirable. Though more for the hard work and less for the actual skill.
I think it’s like every other bell curve – hard work will put you somewhere in the middle of the hump, depending on how much ability (and luck, with respect to your setting/teachers/opportunities) you have. True genius is at the far, far end.
I feel like I’ve glimpsed the limit of my own abilities as an artist. If I work really really hard and have good opportunities, I can achieve a level of proficiency. I have a certain amount of “it” that is genuine and gains me respect among artists.
But I do not, absolutely DO NOT, have the same amount of “it” as the great artists you see in museums**, the famous ones, the ones who are known beyond their time. No amount of work will overcome that.
** That’s not to say that every artist in every museum will be revered forever - some of those choices are a reflection of fashion more than true greatness.
Hi, there. I’d like to weigh in and say in common usage, a lot of people seem to think that talent and skill mean the same thing. I’d agree with many posters that talent to me implies an innate ability, or an unusual proficiency for a beginner. Skill, to me, is how that innate ability in developed. I’m not going to try to argue with studies, but I can tell you there exists a large difference between peoples initial skill levels.
A factor that’s missing from this is passion - if someone has talent and skill but no passion, they are not going to achieve excellence. Passion is what makes kids go to band practice, hockey practice, figure skating, etc. at 6 in the morning and devote the energy to getting better. It might be the parents that get you there, but what made the difference between Wayne Gretzky and someone you’ve never heard of was that Wayne had the passion (drive, motivation, I don’t care what you call it…) and the talent and he developed his skills to an extraordinary level. The combination of all three is the key.
I’m passionate about music, I have a certain talent that luckily got developed and so I am skilled. By contrast, I am passionate about chess and go, I have very little talent and no time to develop my skills, so I’m living proof that it’s possible to find something absolutely fascinating and absolutely suck at it.
On a side note, I think everyone has at least one thing at which they will excel, and one of the greatest tragedies is when a person never finds that thing. What would Gretzky have if he had grown up somewhere with no ice? Would he have become as great at something else, or would he have schlepped through life, got a 9 to 5 job and been average? The question is unaswerable, but when I see someone who doesn’t have something that sparks their engine, I feel a great loss of a potential genius.
As far as what would I rather be called, talented or skilled, well, I’d rather someone said ‘skilled’ because that recognizes the amount of work I’ve put in, but hell - either one’s a compliment, and I can’t get enough of those in my life.
You know, I’ve been back and forth about this. I’m pretty good at drawing because I drew CONSTANTLY when I was young, and now I’ve achieved a good acuity at it- which seems more skill than talent. But, I always come back to what leads a propensity to pick up and continue drawing, as opposed to trying a few times and giving up. Maybe a little talent can encourage someone to keep practicing a skill that someone else would become frusterated about? Or maybe “passion”, as the aforementioned unspellable-username poster 
pointed out, can account for it.
For poets (and I think for other writers as well) there is definitely a talent that some of us have and some of us don’t. There are people who have a talent for capturing exactly how a person would phrase a thought, or what part of that thought would be important to a person. You can see talent even in its raw form, and it will definitely get you to the middle – or even the good side – of the bell curve.
However, I’ve read the first drafts of very talented writers’ work, and they often sucked. They sucked BAD. You could see the spark in them, but they didn’t hang together and have the feel of a finished work. Most high school and college poetry suffers horrendously from this lack of attention to detail, or impatience. Young writers are often inspired by strong emotion and passionate feelings, and they have the words they need to express those feelings, but getting the order right is not just part of the job; in writing (especially poetry) it is the whole job.
I love the way a professor of mine summed up his apathy towards these diamonds in the rough: “Until you put work into it, it’s not a work of art.” I use the word “craft” to talk about how well someone knows the mechanics of their skill.
To throw another wrinkle into the discussion, I’ve seen writers who were immensely talented crafters, but who had no emotional spark. Some of the most beautiful prose I ever read was a technical manual for a ballistic missile guidance system. 
Does not compute. I believe your cites, it just conflicts with my instincts. Of course, I may have a dose of inclination or passion mixed in with my talent, and I have no objection to the notion that a “genius” who never learns/practices/whatever will never be recognized as a genius.
Makes sense–you want credit for the effort you put into something, even if the effort in question was not directly related to the end project. You know, the countless drawings you did for other projects, or for class or something.
I know that feeling, too.
I like your comments about passion, too–and I can spell your name (ok, I ctrl-v’d it). But mostly, I think this comment expresses the other thing that bugs me about my friend who inspired me to post this thread–downplaying talent like she does devalues what is intended as a compliment and derails the discussion. A little self-deprecation is ok, too much is discouraging to those around you.
Jurph,
I like the comment about diamonds in the rough, and the idea that even talented people have to put work into something to truly get something worth valuing.
onomatopoem,
It’s amusing to me that you find that skill and talent are both needed in order to not look foolish. Although, it may be true, at least in the world of ceramics.
In my old SCA days, we often made a distinction between an artist and an artisan. The artist is the creative, imaginative, person. The artisan is the skilled-with-the-hands, figure-things-out, doing-it person.
Sometimes both skills are in one person, sometimes not.
I’m an artisan, for example. Not imaginative but good at taking somebody else’s ideas and adapting & manipulating them.
I think “talent” and “skill” are analogous to artist and artisan but not necessarily identical.
Sculptor checking in.
To me, talent is innate, but MUST be augmented with skill to achieve mastery in anything. They are two very different realms. When I look at student’s work I evaluate on both levels. Creativity, energy, concepts and general design usually fall into the talent category. Some people just have an eye for the thing. Materials, style, execution, and most importantly of all, craftsmanship ,fall into skill. The truly great ones have both in equal amounts. Most have more of one than the other, and thus we get art with a beautiful message that is ugly and poorly made, and boring art that is a wonder of craftsmanship with nothing to say. Interestingly when done without the combination, a product of pure talent, or craftsmanship can achieve the status of a masterwork as well, but that is quite rare.
Makes no sense watching my kids either. My son has some talent (not a lot, but some) for the piano. He picks it up easily, which reinforces him wanting to play, which makes him practice, which makes him good at the piano. He hears it well - he can sound things out.
My daughter has very little talent for the piano. Its a struggle for her to understand it, so she doesn’t practice, develops little skill. But she doesn’t hear it well - he knows when something doesn’t sound right - she doesn’t. And he’s understood music from before he was verbal - he could bounce in time to music on the stereo - she - nada.
I watch my daughter do gymnastics (she doesn’t have a lot of talent there, but is developing some skill). Some of the girls who want it most and work hardest, just don’t have the talent for it - they simply can’t make their bodies bend and flip and balance like the girls with talent AND skill.
And sometimes, passion’s all you’ve got. There are things I really like to do, but I’m not actually very good at. Sure, improvement is possible, but I still fear I’ll end up untalented and unskilled – but hooked.
For those who disagree that there is such a thing as innate talent, what about musical prodigies? Those young children who sit down at a piano without a lesson and reproduce recorded music on the first try? Certainly they are an extreme example, but it’s clear to me that some abilities are naturally present and can be expanded upon with guidance and practice.
I play music. I like to think that I am good at it. I have practiced much to get to that point.
I enjoyed practicing because I picked up the abilities very easily compared to some of my peers.
I can not draw. I’ve tried, and I enjoyed trying. I think that if I dedicated 40hrs a week to learning to draw I might improve somewhat, but I will never be able to whip out sketches the way I’ve seen some people do.