Do you agree that art geniuses are usually purely mechanics and their talent doesn't affect their intelligence or make them smarter?
And if they have intelligence, it is not due to their virtuosity, but just a separate skill, so to speak.
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
So genius in mathematics is just a skill that doesn't make its owner smarter in other areas. It is likely that in principle there is no intelligence in itself, regardless of the field of application.
Both yes and no. About “mechanics and talent”, to put it mildly, a controversial statement (but your question is not about that).
Roughly speaking, intelligence is one of the” qualities ” of a living being (such as strength or beauty).
The same strength can be “pumped” in training halls or simply at hard physical work, as well as using methods of “body correction” (special exercises and even in beauty salons).
Intelligence is also “pumped”, but not in the “physical” area, but in the mental area (the more and more diverse it is used, the “stronger” it becomes).
In this sense, a person who actively realizes himself in art should ” in theory “at the same time” pump up the intellect “(after all, art usually requires mental”exertion of forces”).
But art is different from art (a very widely understood word). For example, serious writers (even detective stories or “romantic soap operas”) actually show quite high intellectual capabilities. But those who write “everything that comes to mind” (without even trying to explore and analyze reality and describe its features) do not develop intellectually (sometimes even vice versa).
Another unpleasant feature of “narrow specialization” has already been noted by Nikita Ka. “One-sidedness” is rarely useful in life and even among people is usually not considered “attractive”. Well, for example, a person who “pumped” only one leg (it is like an elephant, and the rest of the limbs are like perches in comparison with it) is unlikely to be called “strong” (and in fact he is in fact more “disabled” than “champion”), isn't it?
As for “geniuses” (something out of the ordinary outstanding), this is a purely subjective assessment. For some, J. Bach is a genius, while others can't stand his music. Some admire Malevich's “Black Square”, while for many others it is “not painting at all even once”. For me, all people are geniuses (so I can't tell the difference, sorry).
I disagree — and here's why:
You can't tell about a person without knowing them personally. As an artist and writer, when I observe people, I find their judgments to be more subjective and envious. Only a prudent person can evaluate objectively, tactfully, while having feelings and knowledge. Art is a whisper of the soul! Only he who hears will hear!
I don't agree. Genius adds options (both factual and systematic) when analyzing a situation. If you look broadly (deeply), then everything that we call intelligence, soul, inspiration is just a mechanic-a complex reaction to stimuli.