Is genius better than a talent that blooms late? What is the difference?
There are many artists, singers, writers who start to get famous late in life. So, is being “talented” a function of when the society wakes up to the gifts of a person or is it independent of recognition from the society?
It could be that the society just wakes up late to a person who was say hitherto living in a small village and could not be “discovered”. But sometimes, it is also that a person reaches a certain emotional maturity at a certain time.. due to some incident that suddenly makes one see things in ways that he/she has not realized earlier. Then, an ordinary novelist or an ordinary painter suddenly transforms into a Great Artist!
For example, Guru Dutt was a good director but it was not until he made masterpieces like Kagaz ke Phool and Pyaasa that he was truly counted as a genius! On the other hand, Raj Kapoor started by making masterpieces!
Another interesting question is – is the work of a genius at an early age better than the best of works of the late bloomer? Sometimes, I believe, that some great work for a person at that young an age creates a kind of halo around the work itself and renders it as a masterpiece when in reality, if it was indeed compared to the best in business and IF the same work was, say, done by someone twice that person’s age it would have been judged as “ordinary”!
So, there is definitely a “Halo” created by the age effect.
What do you think of this? Do you think a young master is indeed a true genius?
Get Drishtikone Updates
in your inbox
Subscribe to Drishtikone updates and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.