Nature vs Nurture

Fig 1

Nature vs Nurture is an ongoing debate, with both sides having good points which make it hard to decide whether success is just down to a persons gifted DNA or influenced by their life experiences, environment and hard work. Two examples are Leonardo DaVinci and Jimi Hendrix who both took a natural understanding of art and music respectively to the highest level. The fact that they were able to perform to this high level at an early stage in their lives suggests that it may purely have been down to their genes. However the argument to this is that these two individuals had to put a lot of time into practising their craft before they reached peak performance. With Jimi Hendrix, it would seem he was given a natural ability to understand the rhythms and beats associated with music, but to become such a famous guitarist he had to spend the majority of his life practising and working hard to perfect his skills. It was said that he never put his guitar down and took it everywhere he went, even to the bathroom. This highlights how nurture plays a part in achievement. Another example is Richard Branson who seems to have been gifted with a natural talent in understanding business, whether this is down to DNA and that he was always going to strive in that sector, or whether it was down to him having a passion for the subject and enjoying what he was doing. We know that as a result of him failing school at a younger age Branson had to work extremely hard to get to where he is today. Even if he did receive his talent through DNA, he had to put in the hard work, which shows that it may be the case that you need both nature and nurture to get to the top.

With regards to good architectural design it is very similar, with no one knowing whether it is down to inspiration or perspiration. Frank Gehry is an architect that seems to have a naturally gifted design process, as he is able to conjure up uniquely shaped buildings very quickly. Although it could be argued that this is due to the hard work he put in earlier in his life that now leads to his bursts of inspiration. Good design could be purely from inspiration in naturally gifted individuals, as it could be said that people are born with or without an artistic flair. This means that good design would only be done by those that have the natural ability to draw, as it is a very hard skill to learn if you don’t have a natural feel for it. The argument against this could be that people don’t need to physically draw out their design on paper as with the developments in technology they could produce a good design using various programmes on a computer. However, many people could sit there for days on end and still not come up with an idea. Even with their hard work and ambition they may not be able to come up with a good design, whereas other people such as Gehry could throw down a piece of crumpled up paper and produce a design from that in a matter of minutes. This helps argue that it could be inspiration that influences good design as even with continuous hard work it will be one flash of inspiration that will come up with the initial design.

I think it all depends on what you mean by good design, whether it is the initial idea or the final outcome. Perspiration will definitely be required to produce the final outcome, whereas the initial design could come purely from inspiration. I personally believe that it is required to have both to come up with good design, as even if you are naturally gifted you still have to work hard at it to insure that your work is the best it can be. Also, I think everyone that has come up with a good design has had some form of spiritual inspiration or ability passed down through genes, but has also had to work hard to produce that design.