But this is wrong. The point of this essay is saying the opposite is true: A decent IQ gives you the chance to have a change of perspective.
IQ is the artistic equivalent of "how well can you draw a line?" You need a good foundation for artistic expression but many, many people have that and still don't create art worth remembering.
Intelligence (the capacity to process) combined with knowledge can give you that strong intellectual foundation -- but that's all it is. The rest is finding that change of perspective.
I do not think there is any disagreement here. Your reply, the essay, as well as the quote I posted are all about this distance between being naturally intelligent and making something out of it.
There is a disagreement, though, because it's about which aspect takes precedence -- which has the most value.
Imagine a test called Artistic Quotient which gives you a numeric value for how correctly you draw lines, circles, etc. An average artist might have an AQ of 100 and a very good artist an AQ of 120.
Now, imagine looking at a Van Gogh and saying, that the artistic expression he achieved is worth 80 AQ points, putting him on the level of someone who can free hand a perfect circle! It would sound ridiculous, right? Who cares if you can free hand a perfect circle? What does that give you? What's the value of that?
Instead you would tell an aspiring artist, get to an AQ 120 or so as your foundation and then it's all about making something out of it.
My guess: repeatedly zooming out and in again -- to look at the many parts of the whole to see how they all interconnect and interact to then wonder why and why not.
