RE: ::scr Re: doesn't have the morlocks

[Dan Argent <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Sounds cool. However, I don't think I've experienced that 
> sort of thing.
> > Although I know I am very much like my (male) grandparents, 
> but never
> > really knew them due to death getting in the way, I still 
> my nuture in a
> > scientific (i.e. father / mother) family made me the way I am today.
> 
> Right. And the moral of this is that both nature and nurture 
> matter. They are 
> just... starting points for one's development.


> No, no, not what I meant - I meant that if I put effort in to 
> overcome my 
> 'nature' with 'nurture' and became an artist, then to make 
> best use of the 
> 'nature' I have, I'd be a different kind of artist to those 
> who naturally 
> ended up in art because it was in their *nature* to do so. My 
> 'nature' is not 
> particularly arty in the conventional sense; I would make an 
> unconventional 
> artist.

Well the jury's still out, with nature / nurture.

But the point is, if you believe that nature has such an effect on you, then
you fall in to the trap you have above, that you would have to *overcome*
your nature to excell at something. You've already put a massive barrier in
front of yourself.

I'm  taking the convential sense of being artistic to mean actually being
artistic, otherwise I'll get bogged down in "what is art" again.

What if you (or hypothetical Bob) don't _have_ the nature to be an artist?
Is it just a complete waste of time?



Also