The Fiction of Talent

Riverpineapple

I have read and heard a lot in the media about how important it is to have talent and that it's terrible that people on these reality shows don't have talent.

The impression I get is that the people who say this think you are a better person because you have a talent. Do they not realise that talent is just as superficial as good looks. Some people are just lucky to be born with it. Also these people who go on about talent seem to pick and choose which talents are important. They give out about people on big brother having no talent, but they could have lots of talents they don't know about, such as being great at scrabble or pac man. The talent isn't really their issue, what their issue is, is other people are getting attention instead of them and they think these "talentless" celebrities are beneath them. So they try and cut them down with vague "talentless" accusations.

Basically I think some people value talent or say they value talent so highly because it's easier for their ego to rationalize and twist information about it than say looks. If your number one value is looks and you are not good looking then you are going to feel pretty bad, it's quite hard to rationalize yourself into being better looking than most people when you are ugly. So some people decide to value talent instead of other values. It's pretty easy to judge people in your own subjective way on what talent is. You can be amazing in your own mind.

So to sum up, talent is as superficial as looks. People aren't really bothered by "talentless" people in the media, they are bothered by people who are in their eyes beneath them getting media attention. They are bothered by people "beneath" them being treated in a seemingly more important way, that's the real issue these people have.

Look forward to your comments.

Long Onion

Would you go to an untalented Brain Surgeon?

That is all.

Riverpineapple

Long Onion wrote: »

Would you go to an untalented Brain Surgeon?

That is all.

Talent is important for the world, I don't think you understand my point.

General Zod

Riverpineapple wrote: »

So to sum up, talent is as superficial as looks. People aren't really bothered by "talentless" people in the media, they are bothered by people who are in their eyes beneath them getting media attention. They are bothered by people "beneath" them being treated in a seemingly more important way, that's the real issue these people have.

Look forward to your comments.

Talent is not something on the surface. Looks are. Looks are not a sunbtitute for talent, which is what the majority of the gombeens who get promoted to celebrity have.

I don't think talentless people are beneath me. I get angry at actual talent going unrecognised because the entertainment industry would rather push a pretty face than a talented voice.

Riverpineapple

General Zod wrote: »

Talent is not something on the surface. Looks are. Looks are not a sunbtitute for talent, which is what the majority of the gombeens who get promoted to celebrity have.

I don't think talentless people are beneath me. I get angry at actual talent going unrecognised because the entertainment industry would rather push a pretty face than a talented voice.

That's a fair point, although I do feel talent is something on the surface like looks. My main point is a lot of people who slag off the "talentless" people on tv are secretly just p*ssed off someone who they think is beneath them is being treated like like they are more important. I feel people pick and choose what talents are important. Being good at scrabble is as admirable in my eyes as being a good singer.

General Zod

Riverpineapple wrote: »

That's a fair point, although I do feel talent is something on the surface like looks. My main point is a lot of people who slag off the "talentless" people on tv are secretly just p*ssed off someone who they think is beneath them is being treated like like they are more important. I feel people pick and choose what talents are important. Being good at scrabble is as admirable in my eyes as being a good singer.

neither of these things are immediately recognisable just by looking at someone, unlike good looks.

Anyway, what talent show did you audition for?

Riverpineapple

General Zod wrote: »

neither of these things are immediately recognisable just by looking at someone, unlike good looks.

Anyway, what talent show did you audition for?

So if something is less immediately recognisable it has more value. Would a six pack be less superficial than good looks?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Riverpineapple wrote: »

That's a fair point, although I do feel talent is something on the surface like looks. My main point is a lot of people who slag off the "talentless" people on tv are secretly just p*ssed off someone who they think is beneath them is being treated like like they are more important. I feel people pick and choose what talents are important. Being good at scrabble is as admirable in my eyes as being a good singer.

If you have a talent and you develop it, you tend to be far more interesting to talk to than someone who has no talent and a pretty face.

El Weirdo

I seriously doubt that there are many Big Brother contestants who are talented scrabble players.

Riverpineapple

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If you have a talent and you develop it, you tend to be far more interesting to talk to than someone who has no talent and a pretty face.

You could be a talented rock climber, pianist, and snooker player but have terrible converasation skills. It's the conversation skills and freedom of expression that makes someone interesting to talk to.

Daroxtar

Every tragedy is punctuated in the media by talent and beauty.
"Paddy murphy died today in a tragic lawnmower accident. He was a talented plaster"
"Mary Sweeney died tragically today. The pretty teenagers vibrator exploded"

You never hear " John Kelly died tragically, he was a dosser" or "Breege walsh died yesterday. Breege,who was plain as a brick and crap at cooking will be sorely missed".

Fuk that sh!te

Long Onion

Riverpineapple, with the greatest of respect, I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. The best stab i can make is to assume that you are talking about x-factor/pop-idol/Britain's got herpes/Celebrity sh1t-in-a-bucket etc etc. You seem to be irate that someone who has a good voice is pushed upon the masses as being of more value to society than someone who has a less commercially-exploitable talent like ping-pong (although you could make a lot of money from this in Asia I believe)

If this is your argument then it is fundamentally flawed as both attributes are "talents" - you should be asking why certain portions of society value one over the other.

If this is not your argument then I still have absoultely no idea what you are on about.

Riverpineapple

Long Onion wrote: »

Riverpineapple, with the greatest of respect, I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. The best stab i can make is to assume that you are talking about x-factor/pop-idol/Britain's got herpes/Celebrity sh1t-in-a-bucket etc etc. You seem to be irate that someone who has a good voice is pushed upon the masses as being of more value to society than someone who has a less commercially-exploitable talent like ping-pong (although you could make a lot of money from this in Asia I believe)

If this is your argument then it is fundamentally flawed as both attributes are "talents" - you should be asking why certain portions of society value one over the other.

If this is not your argument then I still have absoultely no idea what you are on about.

I think talent in general is as superficial as looks. I think some people value people unfairly above others because of their talent in the same way some people value good looking people above ugly people.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Riverpineapple wrote: »

You could be a talented rock climber, pianist, and snooker player but have terrible converasation skills. It's the conversation skills and freedom of expression that makes someone interesting to talk to.

Possibly so, but at least the rock climber, snooker player or pianist would actually have something to talk about. And at least you can watch them perform. There's far more depth to most of them than theere is with someone who does nothing.

The world needs talented people. It's be very dull without then.
The world does not need good-looking talentless reality-TV shows. They add nothing. The world would be a better place without them.

AnonoBoy

I'm still waiting for the Britain's Got Talons show. That'd be way more entertaining.

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/birdRICHARDAUSTIN_450x350.jpg

Euro_Kraut

Good looks are a type of talent surely. You are born with a certain amount of it and then its up to you to develop it. Some naturally find it easier to be good looking than others., just like singing.

ScumLord

I think NLP has the best take on these things. Being able to do something is a skill, anyone can learn any skill however some peoples brains are better at computing certain tasks which makes it easier for them to learn certain skills. You could call it talent or luck of the draw.

ejmaztec

Daroxtar wrote: »

"Breege walsh died yesterday. Breege,who was plain as a brick and crap at cooking will be sorely missed".

Was it the self-inflicted food-poisoning that tragically ended this poor girl's life?

A lot of people become surprisingly talented after their death, like artists for instance, who die of malnutrition because no-one wants to buy their paintings, yet after they die, their works get flogged for thousands, or even millions.

Naos

Riverpineapple wrote: »

I think talent in general is as superficial as looks. I think some people value people unfairly above others because of their talent in the same way some people value good looking people above ugly people.

Eh what? Talent only gets you so far - after that it's about dedication and practise.

A painter is not born and able to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling, a sprinter is not born and able to run 100m in 9.58 seconds and a pianist is not born and able to play Chopins 'etudes'. Sure someone can have the potential to do these things but they can only be achieved after years and years of hard work.

Michelangelo said it best - "If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all."

Riverpineapple

Naos wrote: »

Eh what? Talent only gets you so far - after that it's about dedication and practise.

A painter is not born and able to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling, a sprinter is not born and able to run 100m in 9.58 seconds and a pianist is not born and able to play Chopins 'etudes'. Sure someone can have the potential to do these things but they can only be achieved after years and years of hard work.

Michelangelo said it best - "If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all."

No matter how hard I try I'll never run 100m in 9.58 seconds.

Boybands like A1 or S club 7 are said not to have talent, but they clearly do, better singers than me, dancing, choreography, ability to handle being in the spotlight. The real reason in my opinion bands like them get the "no talent" criticism is either jealously of looks or the critic believes he/she is a better person than the bandmembers and is bitter that the bandmembers are treated as being higher status.

Riverpineapple

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Possibly so, but at least the rock climber, snooker player or pianist would actually have something to talk about. And at least you can watch them perform. There's far more depth to most of them than theere is with someone who does nothing.

The world needs talented people. It's be very dull without then.
The world does not need good-looking talentless reality-TV shows. They add nothing. The world would be a better place without them.

I think you are mistaking talent for passion. People with passions in their life are generally more interesting to talk to.

Handsome Bob

General Zod wrote: »

Talent is not something on the surface. Looks are. Looks are not a sunbtitute for talent, which is what the majority of the gombeens who get promoted to celebrity have.

I don't think talentless people are beneath me. I get angry at actual talent going unrecognised because the entertainment industry would rather push a pretty face than a talented voice.

That's the "biz" though isn't it? If a suit has a choice between a highly talented but plain look person and a mediocre talent but stunning person, they will choose the latter. Look at the likes of Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, and Girls Aloud. They are certainly not the best vocally speaking but they have that "image" that can be packaged and fed to the targetted audience.

It's something that I detest, however I accept that's how the entertainment business works.

Naos

Riverpineapple wrote: »

No matter how hard I try I'll never run 100m in 9.58 seconds.

Boybands like A1 or S club 7 are said not to have talent, but they clearly do, better singers than me, dancing, choreography, ability to handle being in the spotlight. The real reason in my opinion bands like them get the "no talent" criticism is either jealously of looks or the critic believes he/she is a better person than the bandmembers and is bitter that the bandmembers are treated as being higher status.

Exactly my point - a talent is an ability that's nutured and worked on, taking years to master.

Those in boyands are not talented in comparisson to other singers. A talent person stands above their peers. You can have a juggler who can keep three balls in the air or you can have a talented juggler who can keep 8 flaming sticks in the air.

Riverpineapple

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That's the "biz" though isn't it? If a suit has a choice between a highly talented but plain look person and a mediocre talent but stunning person, they will choose the latter. Look at the likes of Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, and Girls Aloud. They are certainly not the best vocally speaking but they have that "image" that can be packaged and fed to the targetted audience.

It's something that I detest, however I accept that's how the entertainment business works.

Why do you detest someone lucky enough to be born with looks getting fortune out of it but don't detest someone lucky enough to be born with talent getting fortune out of it?

Girls aloud are talented singers and have worked very hard to get where they are today. Also why do people admire talented singers but detest talented marketers and business people behind the scenes of a pop band?

Handsome Bob

Riverpineapple wrote: »

Why do you detest someone lucky enough to be born with looks getting fortune out of it but don't detest someone lucky enough to be born with talent getting fortune out of it?

Girls aloud are talented singers and have worked very hard to get where they are today. Also why do people admire talented singers but detest talented marketers and business people behind the scenes of a pop band?

I never said I detested people getting the rub of the green. What I do detest though is someone who is immensley talented not getting a shot just because they don't have the right "image".

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on Girls Aloud. I just read yesterday that Cheryl Cole has binned plans to perform live on this years X Factor, I wonder if it has anything to do with her as well as her bandmates dire live performance on last years X Factor.

What's so talented about marketers and business people saying "Hey you don't have a great voice, but you're good looking, so I can totally make money from you!" It's a bit lazy isn't it? It's a job that any one with half a brain in regards to entertainment could do too.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Riverpineapple wrote: »

No matter how hard I try I'll never run 100m in 9.58 seconds.

Boybands like A1 or S club 7 are said not to have talent, but they clearly do, better singers than me, dancing, choreography, ability to handle being in the spotlight. The real reason in my opinion bands like them get the "no talent" criticism is either jealously of looks or the critic believes he/she is a better person than the bandmembers and is bitter that the bandmembers are treated as being higher status.

I'd argue that you can train anyone in reasonale physical condition to sing or dance to a certain standard, the rest is marketing. People will by anything if it's marketed properly.

The world needs talented people. It's be very dull without then.
The world does not need good-looking talentless reality-TV shows. They add nothing. The world would be a better place without them.

I think you are mistaking talent for passion. People with passions in their life are generally more interesting to talk to.

Not at all. Of course, it depends on how someone uses their talent, but someone who has talent but has no passion is just as interesting than someone who is trained.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Good looks are a type of talent surely. You are born with a certain amount of it and then its up to you to develop it. Some naturally find it easier to be good looking than others., just like singing.

Derek Zoolander? Than you?

beks101

You're taking the media references to 'talent' far too literally.

When they say they are talentless, what they mean is, they are a pack of spanners.

sock puppet

Riverpineapple wrote: »

Why do you detest someone lucky enough to be born with looks getting fortune out of it but don't detest someone lucky enough to be born with talent getting fortune out of it?

Girls aloud are talented singers and have worked very hard to get where they are today. Also why do people admire talented singers but detest talented marketers and business people behind the scenes of a pop band?

You talk about talent as if someone just pops out of their mother's womb and sells out a concert that night. It takes years of practice. Someone earlier said telent only gets you so far. I'd argue talent gets you nowhere. Practice and hard work gets you far, and then you could say natural talent separates the very few people at the top.

GrizzlyMan

Thinks it a pointless debate, everyone has some sort of talent, we are all individuals, and as for talent when it comes to the media..well we all know that anyone who is on, most of them reality shows have only one talent and that is looking like an idiot to progress their careers.

HowAreYeGettinO

Interesting discussion. I'd have a lot more time for people with talent than people with looks, but that's just me.

In my simplistic view of this, people who are known for their talent are - and I suppose I'm talking about artistic people - contributing something to the world that, if it's good enough, will outlast them.

So if I enjoy their book, movie, painting, CD or whatever, their talent adds to my enjoyment of life, so I'm not bothered if they get plenty of attention, I think they deserve it.

People with looks don't make that contribution - they're just good-looking. For some, that's enough to make them interesting, but not for me.

GrizzlyMan

HowAreYeGettinO wrote: »

Interesting discussion. I'd have a lot more time for people with talent than people with looks, but that's just me.

In my simplistic view of this, people who are known for their talent are - and I suppose I'm talking about artistic people - contributing something to the world that, if it's good enough, will outlast them.

So if I enjoy their book, movie, painting, CD or whatever, their talent adds to my enjoyment of life, so I'm not bothered if they get plenty of attention, I think they deserve it.

People with looks don't make that contribution - they're just good-looking. For some, that's enough to make them interesting, but not for me.

Spot on!!

pikachucheeks

Riverpineapple wrote: »

Do they not realise that talent is just as superficial as good looks. Some people are just lucky to be born with it.

I don't think talent is a necessarily a superficial thing. It depends on what the talent is. Some talents can be superficial - like being able to balance a spoon between your boobs ... or something stupid like that.

I'd be of the opinion that everyone has talent - whether it's being great at singing, being a good football player, being able to cook, etc etc.
I don't think there's anyone who's a complete lost cause. [And for anyone who says there is, there'll be someone else who'll argue that person is "talented at being a waster" ]

However, some people will place more value on certain talents, over others! Talent is subjective - Some people might call Jordan a talented model, others might think she's a talentless slapper - it just depends on your mind set, your point of view.

Kipperhell

I think there is some confusion on what talent is. A natural ability for something is talent to then progress that talent takes time and dedication. The end result is a skill derived from talent. Very few people mange anything with just talent.

Paddo81

Daroxtar wrote: »

Every tragedy is punctuated in the media by talent and beauty.
"Paddy murphy died today in a tragic lawnmower accident. He was a talented plaster"
"Mary Sweeney died tragically today. The pretty teenagers vibrator exploded"

You never hear " John Kelly died tragically, he was a dosser" or "Breege walsh died yesterday. Breege,who was plain as a brick and crap at cooking will be sorely missed".

Fuk that sh!te

Yes Indeed. Local/regional newspapers are the fookin pits for this. Anytime theres a car accident or even a suicide its all "the popular (town) native was a skilled and popular block layer. His funeral was attended by hundreds of his friends because he was so feckin great - his death is a shocking blow to the community"

I always think 1) puke and 2) does this mean that if ur not "skilled" n "popular" your death aint worth a tinkers ha'penny curse? - Maybe so.

Acacia

I don't think being talented makes you a better person. Just one that's more deserving of being famous/well-known for their talents than a 'talentless' person.

Like, whose musical work deserves to be most well-known- Mozart's or Paris Hilton's?

Then again, I s'pose being famous for being talentless takes a kind of talent of its own, so I don't know...what was the question again?

Joey the lips

Talent comes in many types IMO. For example Jordans talent is stairing her in the face. But without her ability to play the media we would not know this. So she equally has a talent to play the media!

I have never heard simon cowel sing but he knows what the public want and how to play the media! Another talent!

The press dont publish good news and bad news they publish news that helps them sell papers! If this were not the case we would all be buying the cheapest peper with the most pages as it would contain more for the price! Another talent!

Some people are born with talent eg: Megan fox is not admired for her acting but her looks! another type of talent. Stephen hawkins is not admired for his looks but his brain!

Some people earn talent! Tiger woods is a great golfer!

Some people will never have talent but money can help there. Manchester united for example Only kidding! Not

Mrmoe

There is nothing wrong wit people being celebrated for having good looks as long as it is not assumed that they automatically have talent or that they are exceptionally good at something.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mrmoe wrote: »

There is nothing wrong wit people being celebrated for having good looks as long as it is not assumed that they automatically have talent or that they are exceptionally good at something.

Why woulod you want to "celebrate" someone for having good looks?

asdasd

Why woulod you want to "celebrate" someone for having good looks?

I think he means celebrate as in gain fame for. Why? Because that is human nature.

irish_bob

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Why woulod you want to "celebrate" someone for having good looks?

why would you want to deny what has happened for thousands of years

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

irish_bob wrote: »

why would you want to deny what has happened for thousands of years

It may or may not have been done for years, doesn't mean it's right course of action. Besides the cult of celebrity is relatively new.