talent versus skills

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 03 Apr 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

EminemsAngelBaby	03 Apr 2004
What are some of the cards that represent talent in the tarot. I know some of the pentacles deal with skill, developing, using, honing, etc. but what are the cards of talent, and which talents do they represent? Thanks:).

firemaiden	03 Apr 2004
Perhaps the first question to ask is what is "talent"? I believe EVERYONE has natural ability for just about everything -- the potential of the human mind is tremendous. However, until it is carved out by blood sweat and tears, nobody cares, or even notices. I could say -- "Hey look, that slab of marble has a great talent for being a statue of David. " And you'd say "You're insane, its just a rock!" " I know I know, there is a David in that rock!!!" Until the work is finished, nobody will ever believe me. That is why, people come up me NOW after 20 years of practising singing, and say "you are so talented" -- and of course, I want to slug them. Why didn't they believe me 20 years ago? The answer is simple -- All they could see was a rock!!!! Acquiring skill is about *reducing limitations* (removing the pieces of rock from the David inside it.) The nature of artistic achievement is -- when you realize your potential, you make it all seem easy -- and not everyone will realize what a slavish path it was to get there. Interestingly, -The Devil is often invoked when describing an amazing performance -- so and so has a "diabolical talent" (or "diabolical" skill) -- which amounts often to nothing more than an enormous passion for the work. Likewise, I personally would equate "talents" with "interests" - whatever a person is interested in passionately enough to chip away at the rock for 20 years--will be what he does well in. -- Depending on what sort of attributions and correspondances you would like to make, you could also attribute the four "elements" to kinds of interests, you might want to see. -the Ace of Cups as a talent/interest in music, painting, and healing arts, or maybe a for swimming, (ROFL) or marine biology, or for finding water with a divining rod, or... (all things to do with water), or psychic matters, etc. -The ace of swords could be intellectual interests, or an interest in (LOL) studying airborne creatures - insectology, or ornithology-- etc, or a passion for words - writing, law, etc. -Maybe the Ace of Coins could be a proclivity for financial affairs, or business, or for gardening (having a green thumb) (LOL), or for nurturing, or for geology, geography, engineering (things to do with the earth) -The Ace of Wands could be seen as an interest in starting fires. (joke) -- for metalwork, glassblowing, (things involving the use of fire... see, just making silly associations) You see where I am going-- be" creative" LOL --

mingbop	03 Apr 2004
this is goin sound SO annoying, and it would annoy me if it were me who was asking ...BUT ! it depends on the question/the perosn youre asking it for/the other cards that come before it...you might get a card telling you the querent is artistic and graceful...then you got 3 pents, that to me would mean you were goin to use this skill in order to make a living...some money.I havent got enough time to go into this as I'm sitting here with henna dripping down my neck !!!

Thirteen	03 Apr 2004
Firemaiden certainly has the right of it. If you were asking: "What have I a talent for?" then the Aces would be a good way to find out (and don't forget, by the by, that Wands also relate to Philosophy, Religion and Leadership). But if you're reading a spread for, say, a person who is trying to be a sculptor and you want to know, during this spread, if he not only has a talent for it, but a true calling...THEN we look for Wands AS well as that that Ace of cups or King of cups (a master artisian). Generally speaking (very general) in a spread, coins indicate raw labor. This would indicate that the person feels what they're doing is work, a way of getting cash. It doesn't mean they won't work hard at it, or not have any talent for it. But they're working hard for the money, not the excitement, the energy that a "calling" often gives people. If I got that Ace of Cups followed by a bunch of coins, then I'd know this person was sculpting busts to order. They may see David in that slab of marble, but unless someone pays them, it's not coming out of that slab. Putting food on the table matters more. Rather like a talented photographer who ends up doing studio work--pictures of little kids and families. Cups indicate Love--thus a person might love something (like scupting) but not have the energy for it. They'd be better off as a Museum curator than a sculptor--because they haven't the drive to finish anything themselves. In this case, David never gets out of the marble, not entirely. Now and then our sculptor lovingly chips away at him. But David remains half in, half out of the marble. And no one ever sees him. Swords might indicate an Art Critic--they want to talk about what's in the marble, but not do it. Swords like being in their heads--or talking about their thoughts. The "idea" of the David in the Marble, how to bring him out, etc., is more fun than actually bringing him out of it. Wands, however, indicate a passion, drive or obsession. They also indicate action. So here you have your true sculptor. He not only *sees* the David in that rock, but he MUST get it out. He must take a chizel to that rock and have at it. And he won't be satisfied till he has it out and just the way he wants it. Wands indicate that the person will burn themselves out over this. They'll blaze through the night to get it done. So if your person said, "I want to be a painter, but I don't know if I have a real talent for it." You'd pull out your aces. Ace of Cups comes up and you say, "Yes, you've a talent for it." But if the person said, "I seem to have a talent for painting, but am I a painter?" Then there's better be some wands in that spread to indicate that this is this person's passion. Also helpful is a court card (page of cups, knight, queen, king) to indicate at which level they are. You get "Page of Cups" and you can tell them: "The reason you feel you're not a painter is you're still just beginning, still learning. But you've got the talent, and you've got the passion. You can do it."

Ravenswing	03 Apr 2004
...topic here. Firemaiden-- Funny you should meantion David. There's a great story about this statue. Leonardo di vinci and michealangelo were two tough competitors in the art world-- something many people don't know. Anyhow, one day a stone was offered di vinci. He looked it over carefully and said there was no way that it was a suitable stone--all the wrong shapes and angles. so he refused it. Hearing this, michaelangelo took up the challenge of creating a piece out of the rejected stone. The stone became David. talent is as talent does..... fly well raven

lawguy51	03 Apr 2004
Firemaiden and Thirteen, as usual, have distilled the question down to its essence. May I add that talent is a gift. I may aspire to slam dunk a basketball but I do not possess the [add diety here] given gift to accomplish a slam dunk. Nor do I have much of a gift for any of the visual arts. So, there's two things at play here. What are your gifts and do you recognize them? A querent is coming to the reader, whether they know it or not, for a glimpse at their innerselves, and the reading may reveal, as Thirteen has stated, where those talents may lie and in what realm of activity. Having worked in the arts, the irony I find is that the truly talented and gifted either don't know it or are so hard on themselves that they won't acknowledge it. While the mediocre think that they are amazingly talented. Perhaps a Tarot reading for a person seeking guidance on where their talents lie, serves the purpose of leveling expectations and realities.

firemaiden	03 Apr 2004
Fantastic story, Ravenswing!!!!

mingbop	03 Apr 2004
michaelangelo is one of my all time heros ---i have never seen anything to rival his colours in paintings.....

Thirteen	03 Apr 2004
Quote: Originally posted by mingbop michaelangelo is one of my all time heros ---i have never seen anything to rival his colours in paintings..... It's interesting to compare Mich. to Leo. in this discussion, because really, Michanelangelo was ALL artist. That was his passion, his talent, his reason for being. Consider the years he spent on his back, getting that ceiling right--even though the church was impatient and pressuring him to finish. Nope. Had to be right. Even if he had to start all over again. Had to be perfect. Very much a King of Cups with wands driving him. Art was all he ever wanted to do, all he ever did do. He didn't even sign his pieces. The art is all that mattered. But Da Vinci wasn't really an artist. I don't mean that he wasn't a brilliant painter and sculptor--he certainly had *the talent*, remarkable and brilliant enough so to create some of the most memorable and seminal works of art in history. But when it came down to it, his calling, his *passion* rested more with invention. Otherwise, that block of marble wouldn't have been "impossible." The things Leo didn't see as "impossible" were flying or traveling under the ocean. A very different passion. Leo was more a King of Swords than Cups (witness the backward writing, his questioning of everything). Time and again, he left his Art behind (incomplete) to invent and investagate. Mich. would have NEVER done that. It makes me think that had Leo not been apprenticed to an artist as a boy or needed his art to gain patrons and money, he might not have ever been an artist. He wasn't one to spend years on his back painting a ceiling--he was one to risk real trouble in search of answers (disecting dead bodies, a no-no at the time). I suspect that, were Leo born today, he'd be more inclined to work for Lockheed or the Rand Corporation than paint portraits and murals. His art now, would probably have remained as the designs and doodles we see in his famous notebooks. Thus we see the difference between having a talent for something (Leo's talent for art), and having both a talent and a calling for something (Mich. talent and passion for art). Having just a skill, in the meantime, can be seen with other, lesser known Rennissance painters who painted perfectly fine pictures--perspective right, colors nice, good compositon...but didn't end up in the Louvre.

HOLMES	03 Apr 2004
there is talent, and skill then there is source gifted. in my view both leo and michel were both gifted obiviously from past lives studies, *perhaps on differnt planets eh?* those reniassance pianters who didn't get famous, that little mention reminded me of a person who had a bit of talent, a bit of skill however lack the gift as it were to become truly great. they might be the leo and the micheals of futurer incarnations just starting out . i know how it is to sit there and work and work on a poem and the possibilities only to see it rejected by the poem contest (why i don't know ) you know the one they advertise win thousands in prizes. so i stop . it is the gifted that makes two people who are of the same skills , same knowledge, same experience, work hard , but one will have a new take on things that make people take notice, while the other work has been done before, however the one whose work has been done before is just as valid. in tarot terms, it isn't so concrete for when we do a reading we may the type reading , or recorded reading but the energy the reader felt when they were read for doens't translate well . but the gifted , is like the super talented. but why would a person with little talent , little skill decided to spend their life studying, learning, to devlop , it is because they have the calling. leo in my view had the calling but his passion lead him else where as micheal didn't have the passion , he had the obession. and that makes it more powerful. edited to add, spock once said "each according to his own gifts"or something like didn't he in star trek two , hmm brb i may go check it out

Thirteen	03 Apr 2004
Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES . leo in my view had the calling but his passion lead him else where as micheal didn't have the passion , he had the obession. and that makes it more powerful. I think I understand what you're saying, although I read passion and obsession as the same. It's the passion/obsession to not only to keep doing what you must do, but to carry it to levels it's not been carried to before--to WANT to have it transend rather than stay within conservative bounds. Is that what you mean by gifted? (Supertalented?) What I was trying to say was that for Mich. his talent/passion/genius meant carrying his art as far as it could go (getting David out of that block of marble). This is why his art is more powerful than Leo's. For Leo, his talent/passion/genius meant carrying his inventions, his ideas as far as they could go. Artistically, he had talent in spades, but he didn't break any boundries, didn't necessarily want to break any boundries. But with his ideas he broke boundries left and right. We know this because his inventions are still mind-blowing. They're universally "before their time." Ditto with William Blake's poetry or Van Gogh's art. Genius is on the cutting edge. But those who are way ahead of it, are supergeniuses, gifted. Leo was gifted not in art, but in ideas. Take Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart is great, amazing because he took a conventional form of music with a certain number of movements, each one having a certain pace, and took that music as far as it would go. The best it could be. There's no doubt that music was his passion/obsession, or that he was a genius. But Beethoven broke the conventions. And then he went even further and created some music that required another 100 years of music development to be understood and appreciated. This is supergenius. There are those who are skilled, and those who are talented...but those who are gifted are very rare--and often unappreciated in their own lifetimes. Which should give you great hope for your poetry, Holmes. You don't want to win those contents. Winning means you're talented. Losing means you could be gifted ;)

HOLMES	04 Apr 2004
on a side note i was watching a video i just got by dan crary one of the major influences in blue grass music. he mentioned hearing clarence white and he said it was like the clouds parted and the light shone upon him and the sound of god could be heard through his playing, then he mentioned to put it another way he sounded like he never had to pratice and it flowed so fast and powerful. to me that is one great master paying homage to another great master. (in bluegrass terms) i remember a quote of mozart hearing beetoven playing and saying something to the effect that man will make some music in this world. (you may know the quote ?) for me passion is giving full time to it , however one doesn't sacfrice love, family, reputation. while obession is super passion which could be destructive as they are so devoted to it they have lost it. Is that what you mean by gifted? (Supertalented?) yes that could be it, supertalent , more like a channel to the source, you know how bb king describes stevie vaugn playing , bb plays phrases while stevie to his hear was like pure music coming from the heavens or soemthing like that . it transcends talent and skill, like they are maxed and there is a quality there. hence that is why there is only one bill munroe , one elvis, one michealanglo. that quality defines them and some may imitate them but you know what i mean i guess. i would disagree with him being gifted not in art. i havne't studied leo in great depth (i like him in the cameo in star trek voyager holodeck) but i seen a cartoon where his teacher said i have never see colours such as that , which was refering to that oil painting. i like the ending of it though , michel was teasing him and leo left and someone else started teasing him and micheal got really mad at him and said there goes a master. (i wish i could remember that cartoon name ) any man who could pain the last supper, http://media64.fastclick.net/w/safepop.cgi?mid=32267&sid=1796&id=105960&len=0&c=11&nfcp=1 deserves to be said he had the gift of art :) i find it very interesting that you bring up mozart and beetoven , for they to me parral the same the mastership, mozart came first then beetoven came next, and so it was with leo and micheal (but leo lived longer didnt' he ?) true , the tradegy of mozard from what little i have read of him is he was born to early for if he lived another few years he could of made quite aliving tutoring instead of when he lived. for me the ode to joy represents the beetoven life work, (and i enjoyed the way it was romanticized in immortal beloved) . ((i enjoy his fure elise as well). they were both super geniuses, i think beetoven was more composer and mozart was more composer . ? that is ok, i am saving up some poems to put into music eventually :O) i think the interesting thing is, regarding tarot , we have had amazing teachers from crowley and waite , to pollack and greer, to the modern writers. but we haven't had a master tarot reader or one who reading ability alone has made them world famous. (like jeane dixon ,) that would be like music teachers becoming famous while the players are unheard of . do you think it will come soon ?

Macavity	04 Apr 2004
Good idea about Aces. I suppose I'd've thought of (Thoth) SIXES in this respect? Tarot seems to take a more pragmatic view on "talents"? Most card possibilities seem to emphasise "earned" success or nurtured skills etc. - D*mn right too! }) I think that genius-talent is a emphatically a one-per-generation thing. The number of self-acclaimed "geniuses" among the mediocre and the "celebrity" of today never ceases to amaze me. But folk like smoke and mirrors. Who ever wants to hear someone spending years honing their (even Tarot!) skills? I speculate one should never RELY on being discovered as a genius - Most folk seem to need to HELP the process along too? There were interesting TV program here on Mozart and Leonardo recently. I was amazed at how much time poor Mozart spent "On Tour" and self-publicity, despite failing health. Sadly, much of which, to no immediate (financial) gain. But it's a good job the Sforzas didn't rely on Leonardo to create the Tarot, or we'd have fewer (or still be awaiting?) the cards! :laugh: Macavity

EminemsAngelBaby	04 Apr 2004
Wow, Everyone thanks for your replies. I've learned so much from reading this thread. I truly appreciate it. Firemaiden, I agree it's important not to limit yourself. If you love doing something do it! I also know that talent is no substitute for hard work. Thirteen, You have a way of bringing simplicity to a complex subject and making it easy to understand. Thank you:). I'm now beginning to see how it all comes together. Being new to all this it's easy for me to hone in on one card in the spread and try to interpret too much into that one card......I was thinking in terms of a few of the cards being indicators of talents for different things but now I see the spread itself like a painting. The shapes, line, and color all work together to form the picture. Same with the cards, they all work together to paint the individual picture being considered. Thanks so much. I know my reading skills took a big leap thanks to your insights. Don't know why I didn't "see" this before!! Law Guy, I agree that talent is a gift. I thought the tarot may be a useful tool to anyone wanting to explore and recognize their gifts. Everyone else, I've enjoyed reading all of your comments on talent, skill, calling, and supermeganova genius:). So many facets to creativity. A fascinating subject.

The talent versus skills thread was originally posted on 03 Apr 2004 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.