Is Talent Subjective or Objective?

Subjective, and it has to be... Its stupid and ignorant to say that your opinion is fact..

 

Talent is a relative term. When someone makes that assumption, they're basing it off their own experience.

A mouse is small to a human, but not to a flea. A germ is small to a flea but not to an atom, etc.

 

It's definently subjective, it cant be proved that someone has talent.

 

Music is mathematical, which is objective. True talent in the field of music is objective.

 

Objective.
While you might not necessarily enjoy somebodies music, you can tell whether they are talented or not.

 

Subjective,
its pretty much someone's taste in music,
to tell if you have a talent.
its there opinion, therefore,
no talent in truth

 

It's purely subjective. Someone like Yo-Yo Ma compared to Mozart may not be considered talented, while compared to me he'd be a music god.

 

Isn't the point of music to entertain people? To get them to enjoy it? If your not enjoying it, then they aren't very good at it. So, i would say, they arent talented.

 

I might not enjoy the work of Beethoven, but I can still recognize that objectively he is talented in his area.

 

In my opinion talent is objective.

I believe this because there are always people who are just naturally good at something, and they don't really have to work towards it it's just there.

really talent is just your potential of excelling in an area.

Take the Chinese gymnasts for example; they take the little girls from their homes, put them into camps and weed the ones with the most talent out.

Talent isn't everything though, it's just a measure of how hard you have to work for something you want/need to be good at.

 

I believe it depends. Clearly, some people can be untalented, but maybe to someone like their mother they can seem extremely talented. Although this is true, someone can be talented enough, that whether one likes it or not, that IS beautiful music.

 

the world we live in is subjective.
the definition of subjective is subjective.
everything is based on pre-concieved thoughts and ideas. sometimes these thoughts and ideas are called definitions or facts. we all apply definitions and terms to the phenomena in the universe in an attempt to explain the things going on around us.

this is not evil: it is neccessary in order to communicate. but people should attempt to understand that the TRUE FEELINGS we have inside of ourselves are at the root of all the opinions in the world. we all look at an orange and see an orange. we only agree to call it an orange so we can discuss it, refer to it, understand it.

talent is what it is. we can all sit down and listen to a country song and hear the same thing. we can hear a rock-and-roll song and we hear the same thing. everything is subjective to the feelings we have about it (yes, we sometimes call these feelings facts to make ourselves feel better).

/end rant (before i get out of hand and off topic)

 

what you find entertaining and what you find talented are two completely different things mole...

musical talent is objective, people are continuing to use entertainment value and stage presence to measure talent...

by your definition of talent, Beethoven is a piece of crap while bands like Slipknot and All American Rejects are infinitely better... sure they may have better stage presence and entertainment value, but they're sure as fuck aren't more talented.

 

this is directed towards me?
my point was that it all depends on your definition of talent..... maybe you missed that?

i never defined talent in my response, so MY definition should have been difficult to pick out. i was trying to say that no matter if you think someone is talented or not, everyone hears the same thing. the sensation is identical for each individual, even though the perception can vary. i think it is more interesting to attempt to find where the variation comes into play than it is to attempt to label someone as talented or not talented.

and in DIRECT response to the topic (because i DO get off topic), i think that talent has nothing to do with how good you are at something. talent is related to how hard you have to work to become good at something. even though i swim every day, i will never be as good as michael phelps because he is more talented than i am.

 

objective is what it should be but in many a case its subjective.

 

It's objective based on tone quality, sound quality, pitch, and if it's in tune or not. From there on out, it *can* be subjective.

 

subjective, because some people like country and i can't fucking stand it....no country singer has any talent to me at all.