Some individuals suggest that creating art is a universal ability for everyone to perform. In contrast, others claim that innate talent is a crucial component that a person needs for the creation of art. Although both schools of thought hold merit, I agree with the latter view.
On the one hand, art can be studied by practices and tuition. To illustrate, in the 20th century, most schools have subjects relating to music and paint, so students are allowed to learn how to play various kinds of instruments and develop basic drawing skills. Additionally, people easily access and improve art with the support of technology and digital devices. Many youngsters use app Paint, and they rely on Chat GPT in order to make more AI images. Consequently, this evidence indicates that people are able to create art due to the help of alternative factors such as education and modernization.
On the other hand, although art does not require perfection, it still needs the depth of emotion, which can not be expressed by normal individuals. Many paintings made by talented people have stable colour, sustainable structure, and a few mistakes compared to those of others. Furthermore, artists’ results store a large number of life topics, including love, nature, and history, which touch viewers’ hearts and spark their imagination. Lastly, art from well known painters can last through centuries. For example, pictures created by Picasso and Van Gogh survived during many periods of time, and the wealthy often auction these pictures in the global market. As a result, only inner capability can perform exactly the initial value of art.
In conclusion, each point of view has its own benefits. However, I am in favor of supporting the latter opinion as the artists are the only people who can emphasize and develop the importance of art, namely the appearance and the valuable lessons inside their pictures.