Talent is Taste
‘Skill’ is how well you do something—the physical aspects, let’s say, of doing it. ‘Talent’ is a trickier word to define—sometimes it’s just used interchangeably with ‘skill’, and that’s fine, I get that. But it could just as easily be used in place of ‘taste’—and yet, it so often isn’t. This is because taste is supposed to be a quality that audiences or critics hold, not artists. To talk about an artist’s taste seems like too much —they already get so much praise, why give them any more? It, however is a crucial aspect in the success of their art—without taste, an artist wouldn’t be able to create anything at all.
So much of creating is ‘I like this’ or ‘I don’t like this’—not even anything you can articulate intellectually, just a statement of something feeling right not. ‘This’ can be any aspect of what you’re putting together, from the content, to the method, to the whatever. An artist should not be expected to be able to give a reason—sure, they might be able to muster one if pestered, forced, but it’d just be a made up one. What they’re feeling is beyond words, thoughts. The muse deep within them is either nodding or shaking her head. She has her reasons, and I think even if she were able to explain them, we might not even understand the reasons given by her until after the piece were completely finished. She’s non-local, existing outside of time and space, able to glimpse the finished project and crib from that—we’re local, stuck, here to obey and not question.
As human beings, we like to think that taste is a result of having heard or seen so much that you’re an expert on what will work or not. In reality, no one fits that bill—even someone like Tarantino, who seemingly has seen every movie ever made, can’t do that. He is guided, as we all are, by our own taste—something deep in us that sends us on the artistic journeys we head down, both creatively and as viewers, and takes us through twists and turns along the way. If he is anything, he is simply someone who has had a thorough and obedient journey through cinema. Anyone can do that, if they really listen to their own taste, really dowse art.
Michael Jackson was a skilled singer. He also demonstrated phenomenal taste throughout his career—not always, but often enough to be considered one of the greatest pop stars of all time. The times he faltered were the times he strayed from his muse, plain and simple—art only sucks when that happens. The natural state of art is to be good or even great—it’s all supposed to resolve in a consonant manner. If you art sucks, maybe your skill is so low that you can’t yet perform the physical tasks necessary—but maybe it’s that you don’t understand or respect the nature of your own taste. Maybe you only follow it here and there. The only one who can know for sure is you, but if you’re making dreck, that might be why.
It pains me to watch art that sucks. Not art that is weird, or different—art that is a bastardization of its own self. Art that is like watching a bad marriage between artist and muse—a glimpse into their fraught relationship. We can have better art in this world if we strengthen that relationship, improve it by stressing the importance of it. Audiences will be happier too—they will understand that something is simply ‘not for them right now’, and that that’s okay, they’re just on some other trip. The important thing is that they’re on a trip at all, being guided at all. Anyone who gives themselves over to her current will be okay.
If you enjoyed this piece, and enjoy my films, consider contributing $2 per month to my film studio, Kill The Lion Films.