In a message dated 6/10/12 9:26:25 PM, [email protected] writes:
> I once took an aptitude in art test as a teenager. It consisted of > facing pages > of Kandinsky-esque designs and I was to choose the best design on each set > of > pages. My score was percentile 3. I was told that 97% of people taking > the > test scored better than I did. I replied that all of the designs were bad > and > that the test was a flop. I also knew right away that I had an art career > ahead. > wc > > I've seen many, many aptitude tests, and I've never seen one that I felt could be a useful test/predictor of worthiness in poetry or fiction. Two of the three things such "tests" can't test are creativity and sensibility. (The third is long-term memory, which in fact also very often plays a role in creative verbal achievement.) I imagine the same obtains when it comes to visual creativity. It's notorious that those who get ultra-scores on "IQ tests" tend to be good at "drawing" -- because they early on learn the cerebral stuff like anatomy, proportions, and perspective. But they seldom go on to great achievement in visual arts. That's probably why William is so good an artist. Thank god he's never been cerebral. (Heh-heh! I mek beeg juk, William. I think you're cerebral as hell.)
