Both Spalding and Chas make some excellent points here.

Having read quite a few biographies and autobiograhpies of/by very talented people -in the Arts of Music, Painting, Architecture, Literature, Design, etc.-I noticed something rather peculiar: almost none boasted of their talents and all were in awe of someone else's talent. None felt satisfied no matter what great work of art they'd created. On the contrary, they usually felt like they should've done better, that they missed something important, that time wasn't on their side. Their urge to "create" takes "prominence" over anything else, no matter at what cost.

The self-conceited artist, on the other hand, feeds on arrogance, and has an egotistical disregard of others. His urge to "create" is usually a need to be "prominent" and for financial gain.

But this begs the question: "Who decides whether one is talented?" Does a food critic make a good cook? Does a baseball scout make a great ballplayer? How do we "define" that something that we call "talent"?

I don't know whether anyone noticed but "talent" and "genius" have become overused in today's vocabulary. But that may be food for another thread

Taike


------------------
Bo pen nyang.

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 07-02-2010).]