Thoughts on talent mandate by J. Brent Morrison

In response to Dennis Frymire's thoughts on the subject.

In the Acting field specifically.

When we say someone is a talented actor, we are actually giving credit to a plethora of skills. Speech, memory, muscle control, imitation, interpretation, determination, creativity, empathy, etc. These talents do not exclusively belong to actors and can be used in a variety of fields. So the argument would go, you have a mandate to use your talents, but not necessarily as an actor.

Generally.

People are self-motivated to use their talents (qualities, not jobs). If you are an eloquent speaker, you tend to talk more. If you have a good memory, you tend to remember things. People generally avoid things (jobs, not qualities) that they knowingly suck at. This can be hard to see at first, like that William Hung guy who was a terrible singer but tried out anyway for American Idol. Turned out he actually had a talent for entertaining, and he pursued that to record deals and talk show appearances. To call that a mandate misses the point. People are not morally obligated to do jobs at which they are good. They just do.

J. Brent Morrison is a former colleague of Jacob York. His opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this blog.

Does talent come with a mandate to aspire to greatness?

I posted this on my Twitter not long ago, but it's a question that I am truly curious about and would love to hear opinions on.

This is a question that initially occured to me in the context of Rasheed Wallace signing with the Celtics. Or, rather, it didn't occur to me. It occured to Joey over at FreeDarko in this article. You won't mind if I quote for context, will you?

"We already know that history is likely to speak ill of Roscoe. It will harp upon his volatility. It will almost jeer as it calls him an underachiever. And it surely will subsume his contribution to Detroit's recent championship, bundling it with "however" and "if only" while emphasizing the technicals and the meltdowns. Rasheed will go out as grousing, mercurial, unreliable. His enormous talents will only damn him, as the critics, whose voices appear to ring loudest, cite his gifts as evidence of the disappointment he's authored.

Our sports culture so thoroughly disdains "wasting" talent that Rasheed Wallace's career is almost wholly anathema. (...) Rasheed bears some blame, of course. His flare-ups have been counterproductive, and shameful moments like Game 6 against Cleveland three seasons ago strike at whatever sympathy his personality, history, and style encourage. Be moody. Reject that talent carries with it a mandate to aspire for greatness. But don't flout obligations, or punk out in such explosive, consuming fashion."

So, the question is...does it? This doesn't just go for sports. It can easily be transposed to anything, but our discussing will naturally lean toward acting.

If one is talented, what is it to "waste" those talents? And why does it gall us so to see it?

I don't expect much discussion, but I do think it's a topic that warrants it.