What Mozart had, we now believe, was the same thing Tiger Woods had ”” the ability to focus for long periods of time and a father intent on improving his skills. Mozart played a lot of piano at a very young age, so he got his 10,000 hours of practice in early and then he built from there.
The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft.
a good lesson on the feast of S. Joseph the worker…though I am willing to bet a little spark…dare I call it ‘gift’ plays a part too?
So … an attribute of genius is the ability to set a boring practice routine? Perhaps boring to the writer … but I’ll be the genius — or future genius — is anything but bored.
I’d also suggest that genius might involve the ability to focus … but only to the degree that the mind remains free to wander … rapidly visiting otherwise seemingly divergent paths … picking up bits and pieces of useful information.
In support, I cite the degree of focus brought about by attention deficit medication — werein the wandering process is greatly reduced. Test have conclusively determined that such medication stiffels the ability to create. Moreover, my personal experience is exactly that … and it’s a useful bit of knowledge.
Most of this is half truth, and therefore terribly misleading. See his description of the early Mozart. He wass playing at four and composing soon thereafter. Now, how many of you, encouraged by parents and working as hard as you can, could play the piano at four, or could compose anything worth listening to at any age? The necessity of work is real enough; every first rate performer works hard to develop the g enious he was born with – but the critical phrase is “born with.”
The Mozarts and Rembrandts and Einsteins are genetic. Merely practicing with a dedicated passion will not put you in Carnegie Hall.
I have had students try to sell me the tale that genius is made, not born, and I simply reply ,”If it is true, why are you not Mozarts now – or do you prefer to be mediocre?” In an way, this “argument” is the result of parents tells their children the old lie, “You can be anything you want to be if only you try hard enough.”
I have been writing poetry for years and years – working at it, in fact, out of love. I am not capable, even after fifty years of practice of “…Bare ruined choirs where late the sweet birds sang. ”
L
I agree # 3. I think it is a combo of both. Growing up, I played sports. I played with many great athletes who spent 2-4 hours a day practicing but never went on to play professionally – whereas the couple who practiced as long but who were also ‘born with something special’ did. I think this is likewise in the academic realm.
Poor editing on my part … I’ll be the genius is anything but bored was meant to be I’ll bet the genius is anything but bored.
Interesting that this article has been the NYT’s most shared for a couple days this week; there must be more NYT readers who care about ‘genius’ than I ever imagined. I am in a similar category as you, poet Larry Morse, having a nice voice and always singing but certain I will never so much as make a YouTube clip anyone could appreciate…… It seemed odd to me that Tiger Woods was mentioned in the same sentence with the word ‘genius’ but having thought about that, it must be that Brooks is exploring how people perfect what they have to surpass others’ achievements and draw recognition, which in his world no doubt includes earning bucketloads of money.
I don’t think Brooks distinguishes between genius, and skill or craft, which is Woods’ category, here. There’s no doubt that all these are ‘10% inspiration and 90% perspiration’, as has often been said. In fact however ‘genius’ implies a divine spark that shines in the person and is what persistently draws recognition and sets their development of their talent apart from other highly skilled practitioners. DaVinci, Einstein, Shakespeare, Mozart – perhaps Galileo? – personages who in some way bucked a tide in their time and whose achievements last far beyond their time because they embodied a transcendent connection to the natural world which has given guidance to people in subsequent eras as well. Shouldn’t Christians in fact recognize Jesus as the greatest genius ever (a diimension of His divine sonship)? But worldly rewards may or may not accrue to geniuses. Humankind often fails to recognize them at the time and even then, may treat them badly. (My pet genius of this type is Maria Callas, without whom most operatic art past WWII might have all but died out.)