"Skill is a hindrance. Looking good is a hindrance. Balance is a hindrance.
You work hard to get skill so that you can efface it."
-Kazuaki Tanahashi, "Brush Mind"
I never liked the concept of talent. Talent is usually associated with "gifts" from nature. The idea of people being "inherently good" at certain pursuits.
The reason I never liked it was because I always felt one's attention should not be on things beyond our control (if at all they exist. There are many contradicting studies about the existence of the concept of "inherent" talents), and only "skills" that have been earned through effort must be recognized and encouraged. There is a very obvious conundrum presented by such a stance. How does one differentiate between a "skill" and a "talent"?
That's not an easy question to answer. And in the context of categorization of external observations, probably not even one one worth pursuing. It however does have significant value in an introspective and/or educational context. Leading contemporary pedagogical studies strongly prescribe usage of praise as a motivational tool for "work put in/ efforts taken" vs "talent". As such advocates conclude, the former approach leads to proactive growth in the individual, while the latter leads to complacency. This does make sense, and is what led to my bias against the idea of "talent" in the first place.
We cannot deny differences in "inherent skills" of individuals. Such "talent" does certainly give a boost in the beginning. But eventually the playing ground evens itself out. Inherent talents are in themselves quite specific and limited, and need to be applied consistently to a relevant pursuit to grow into something meaningful. One could then quite justifiably argue that these "talents" are subsumed under the domain of "skill"; i.e. that which is cultivated through work and effort.
So is excellence all about cultivating "skills" then? Most certainly not. As a student of Music, I can say for sure that extensive practice alone is not what makes a brilliant musician. There is almost at least (oxymoron intentional :P ) just as much space for something very subjective and individual about those who have achieved brilliance in any field of Art. The line between distinctive practice methodologies and individual attitude/ subjective application is not very clear. Subjectivity is what elevates a technically correct piece of work to a work of brilliance. Is this "talent" then? Do we have no control over it?
Well, even if we concede that some of it is beyond our control and can only be attributed to Karma/ Luck (based on one's Theosophical bent of mind :P); there certainly is at least some portion of this "talent" that can be cultivated. Otherwise, a brilliant musician would not be a generally inspiring person to talk to. An exceptional painter would not be able to charm a lay person even without his paints & easel. A genius mathematician would not be able to trigger a quest for meaning through a general conversation. The very fact that pioneers of a specific domain move and inspire even in contexts unrelated to that domain shows that there is more than just skill in making them truly outstanding.
I'm extremely fortunate to be training in the Dhrupad form of Music under Gurus who are undoubtedly exceptionally "skilled" and also amazingly "talented" (Padma Shri Gundecha Brothers). In the 3 years I have spent with them, I have seen how their approach to living life in general itself is so inspiring, which certainly has some causal link to their music, that literally sparks of genius. They have undoubtedly toiled for thousands of hours to develop their skills. But that is only one part of what makes them so phenomenal. Explaining what this is, is almost impossible. One progresses along this elusive path through continuous exposure to the thoughts, philosophies and experiences of great artistes. Spending time in person with such people is ideal. My Gurus spent a large amount of time with their Ustads when they were learning (and a lot many other outstanding artists of all forms in their time), and are now passing on the same experience to their students. Their teaching is not solely focused on developing the skills of their students. Through life in the Gurukul, with its various tasks and challenges, living & learning amidst various contrasting individuals from very diverse backgrounds, they bring in a considered blend of focused music training, allied philosophies, experiential training in virtues like responsibility, commitment, discipline, empathy, compassion, leadership and facilitate a particularly holistic growth of each individual. Even though it may not seem so at the moment, every aspect of life in the Gurukul is actually a direct contribution to the growth of either the "skill" or the "talent" of the individual.
Skill certainly arises out of the rigors of discipline and intense practice. Cultivating Talent probably calls for a very high level of honesty & awareness that demands immense courage. It is quite elusive, misleading and possibly hence, fascinating!
Ending with another quote from the same book as the opening line -
"Profundity and uniqueness: undeniable qualities of outstanding art. Profundity comes largely from discipline - learning techniques, copying ancient works, repeating the same things over and over. Uniqueness comes from freedom, which means to keep on learning from ourselves. discarding things we have learned from others. Here, classical pieces are not the ultimate goal; they are guideposts, sources of inspiration."
-Kazuaki Tanahashi, "Brush Mind"
You work hard to get skill so that you can efface it."
-Kazuaki Tanahashi, "Brush Mind"
I never liked the concept of talent. Talent is usually associated with "gifts" from nature. The idea of people being "inherently good" at certain pursuits.
The reason I never liked it was because I always felt one's attention should not be on things beyond our control (if at all they exist. There are many contradicting studies about the existence of the concept of "inherent" talents), and only "skills" that have been earned through effort must be recognized and encouraged. There is a very obvious conundrum presented by such a stance. How does one differentiate between a "skill" and a "talent"?
That's not an easy question to answer. And in the context of categorization of external observations, probably not even one one worth pursuing. It however does have significant value in an introspective and/or educational context. Leading contemporary pedagogical studies strongly prescribe usage of praise as a motivational tool for "work put in/ efforts taken" vs "talent". As such advocates conclude, the former approach leads to proactive growth in the individual, while the latter leads to complacency. This does make sense, and is what led to my bias against the idea of "talent" in the first place.
We cannot deny differences in "inherent skills" of individuals. Such "talent" does certainly give a boost in the beginning. But eventually the playing ground evens itself out. Inherent talents are in themselves quite specific and limited, and need to be applied consistently to a relevant pursuit to grow into something meaningful. One could then quite justifiably argue that these "talents" are subsumed under the domain of "skill"; i.e. that which is cultivated through work and effort.
So is excellence all about cultivating "skills" then? Most certainly not. As a student of Music, I can say for sure that extensive practice alone is not what makes a brilliant musician. There is almost at least (oxymoron intentional :P ) just as much space for something very subjective and individual about those who have achieved brilliance in any field of Art. The line between distinctive practice methodologies and individual attitude/ subjective application is not very clear. Subjectivity is what elevates a technically correct piece of work to a work of brilliance. Is this "talent" then? Do we have no control over it?
Well, even if we concede that some of it is beyond our control and can only be attributed to Karma/ Luck (based on one's Theosophical bent of mind :P); there certainly is at least some portion of this "talent" that can be cultivated. Otherwise, a brilliant musician would not be a generally inspiring person to talk to. An exceptional painter would not be able to charm a lay person even without his paints & easel. A genius mathematician would not be able to trigger a quest for meaning through a general conversation. The very fact that pioneers of a specific domain move and inspire even in contexts unrelated to that domain shows that there is more than just skill in making them truly outstanding.
I'm extremely fortunate to be training in the Dhrupad form of Music under Gurus who are undoubtedly exceptionally "skilled" and also amazingly "talented" (Padma Shri Gundecha Brothers). In the 3 years I have spent with them, I have seen how their approach to living life in general itself is so inspiring, which certainly has some causal link to their music, that literally sparks of genius. They have undoubtedly toiled for thousands of hours to develop their skills. But that is only one part of what makes them so phenomenal. Explaining what this is, is almost impossible. One progresses along this elusive path through continuous exposure to the thoughts, philosophies and experiences of great artistes. Spending time in person with such people is ideal. My Gurus spent a large amount of time with their Ustads when they were learning (and a lot many other outstanding artists of all forms in their time), and are now passing on the same experience to their students. Their teaching is not solely focused on developing the skills of their students. Through life in the Gurukul, with its various tasks and challenges, living & learning amidst various contrasting individuals from very diverse backgrounds, they bring in a considered blend of focused music training, allied philosophies, experiential training in virtues like responsibility, commitment, discipline, empathy, compassion, leadership and facilitate a particularly holistic growth of each individual. Even though it may not seem so at the moment, every aspect of life in the Gurukul is actually a direct contribution to the growth of either the "skill" or the "talent" of the individual.
Skill certainly arises out of the rigors of discipline and intense practice. Cultivating Talent probably calls for a very high level of honesty & awareness that demands immense courage. It is quite elusive, misleading and possibly hence, fascinating!
Ending with another quote from the same book as the opening line -
"Profundity and uniqueness: undeniable qualities of outstanding art. Profundity comes largely from discipline - learning techniques, copying ancient works, repeating the same things over and over. Uniqueness comes from freedom, which means to keep on learning from ourselves. discarding things we have learned from others. Here, classical pieces are not the ultimate goal; they are guideposts, sources of inspiration."
-Kazuaki Tanahashi, "Brush Mind"
