I'm curious how we define talent, especially as it relates to art. ...
MusicLover mentioned technical skill. But is the application of technical skill talent or is it simply craftmanship? Truly talented people seem to push beyond the limits of old techniques or even completely upend them to create something new.
....
And if talent is just stuff we like, then wouldn't the fact that a lot of people like an artist be evidence of talent whether we appreciate it or not? Or is something else required?
I'd say that for the most part, it doesn't matter how we define it. As others have said, her fans like her music/performance/personality/looks (the whole package), isn't that enough?
I asked earlier
"- is she talented, music-wise?", but I should have worded that more like
MusicLover did, and ask about technical skill and craftsmanship. Again, it doesn't really matter, it was just something I was curious about.
Technical skill and craftsmanship are still somewhat subjective, but certainly more objective than 'talent' (I like what I like). I'm pretty sure that 100 experienced guitar players would have judged her playing along the lines that I did - adequate for the song, mixes up the strumming (not just 1-2-3&4) but doesn't throw in any embellishments. Pretty simple playing.
Technical skill and craftsmanship doesn't cover it all either. There is that less definable 'feeling/soul/emotion'. I love much of Joe Cocker's work, some of Rod Stewart's early work, yet their voices are almost hard to take. But they get a message across with what they have. So maybe that is 'craftsmanship'?
And whatever I think doesn't matter to anyone else. Everyone is free to enjoy whatever they like. But if someone wanted to claim that Swift is an accomplished guitar or piano player, I would take issue with that, and say she is adequate.
OTOH, a favorite movie clip of mine is from "School of Rock" - Jack Black asks the kids who their favorite artists are, a kid yells out "Puff Daddy", and Black yells out "WRONG!".
-ERD50