Whoops. I was all about to add DMV registration early to my to do list, so I don't let it slip this year like I usually do...and then I remembered: I DON'T OWN A CAR.

Man, I hate remembering that.

Am I being lazy in thinking I have moderately above average drawing talent that could certainly be enhanced with training

I could not draw a decent line until I read (was trained by) Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards. It changed everything. Now, I can do exemplary renderings but cannot draw-from-my-mind in the way that you can.

Some of our pieces might be comparable, but you have talent and I do not...to my way of thinking...because you can create something from nothing, whereas I can copy something quite well.

t was really clearly obvious who had pipes of gold

Was it obvious who had the nicest ass? One person's pipes of gold can be another's tortured cat, right?

Is Gaiman more creative than Hemmingway?

If I ask a group of kids to make up a story about a newly discovered animal, what it looks like, they'll all create something from pieces of their knowledge, using past experiences of something that is called "animal" to describe something. Is the kid who writes the vivid tale about an epic adventure in which the last line is the discovery of a pink cat more creative than the kid who writes that when he was on the way to school she tripped over a pink cat? Or do they just have different levels of writing skills? Has one read a lot and therefore has gained the knowledge that employing suspense and a red herring can make something as lame as a pink cat seem very exciting and ultimately funny in the epic lead up, like how rosebud was a sled? That's probably something one learns, can be taught to do.

Is that talent or skill? Is it inborn creativity? I don't freakin' know.

One thing to remember is that "talent" isn't one thing. It's the combination of things.

Just as you can watch Top Chef and see that somebody obviously has a knack for unusually creative dishes that combine things in new ways and somebody else is great at executing classics and somebody else is incredibly efficient at managing their time, and somebody else has a higher highs and lower lows, etc.

In baseball there isn't just a hitting talent. Just going down a lineup I know well, on Emmett's tournament team you'd have:

Matthew - best at going with the pitch, high contact, high walk, doubles power.

Arlo - squares the ball up with home run and doubles power and high contact, low walks, incredible under pressure, great bat speed.

Alex R. - consistent contact and double power. Smooth stroke.

Jack - best power, high strikeouts, good walks.

Emmett - high contact with good home run power, medium walks. Best in RBI slot.

Kye - best bat speed but streaky on contact.

Hitting for contact, drawing walks and hitting for power are all different aspects of hitting.

I remember the Challenger crash, because I was in 7th grade, we stopped class to watch it all day long, we wen ou to hang the flag at half-mast, and my Bio teacher was freaking out, because she's been on the final list of teachers to go up on that flight.

One person's pipes of gold can be another's tortured cat, right?

No. Because it's the ability to hit certain notes and have a certain tone.

My confirmation bias is that I have difficulty accepting that I have writing talent, and believe it is a skill I've honed through practice, reading, and criticism.

However, anecdatally, my mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and I are all proficient at drawing and painting. It's hard for me to accept that there isn't some genetic material that points to or maybe enhances that skill. Every human can draw a representation of a human. It may be a stick figure, but humans are especially adept at recognizing/translating patterns (this is why we see images of Jesus in burnt toast). It's an ability we have when tumbling out of the womb, to be able to learn these things. We can draw a map, learn a chord, add two and two...rudimentary stuff. My dog will never be able to draw a map outlining where on the street my apartment is located. Even if she had thumbs.

I can draw the building itself and create the illusion of depth using perspective and shading, scaled in balance with the flower beds and carport. Is this a learned skill, or do I have a genetic predisposition to do this? Keep in mind that I was given paper and crayons and pens and ink when i was very small, with the expectation that this was just something I could do because my mother could. My brother cannot do this. He had access to these materials, but difficulty with spatial relationships (likely due to his dyslexia). My cousins and aunts cannot do this.

But if i was never given paper and pencils, would I have taken that required life drawing class in college and discovered that I had some holy shit ability to sketch the model? IDK. I can assume that I was given these things, was interested in it because my mother praised me for it, and became better over time with practice.

No. Because it's the ability to hit certain notes and have a certain tone.

That's a universal? I'm not being dickwaddy, I just don't know if that crosses cultural lines, or if it more like the subjectiveness of physical beauty.

I have had many arguments about the beauty of Leonard Cohen's voice with a cousin who will only listen to Jennifer Warnes sing his stuff. I feel like it's lacking beauty, but he thinks I'm on crack. If I were listening to it and did not speak english, would I prefer to hear the same lyrics out of Cohen, or Warnes?

That's a universal? I'm not being dickwaddy, I just don't know if that crosses cultural lines, or if it more like the subjectiveness of physical beauty.

I don't think a specific musical scheme crosses all cultural lines, but the ability to conform to a scheme requires talent. IM biased O.

Even within a culture, once you get beyond a certain level of skill, creative things get really subjective, obviously. But it doesn't mean that any acclaimed writer/singer/composer/painter/etc. isn't better at what they do than I am, or likely than I would ever be, even given 10,000 hours of work on my part.