>>7749263
I've read up on the subject of talent. You're not totally wrong, "talent" is real, but there's a lot more to it. There's two types of drawing, observational and internalized drawing. Observations help build up internalized knowledge, visual libraries. To build up both, you'll need to study the objects you're trying to convey, otherwise you're going to make a Proko Kangaroo. Some people can translate geometric shapes into objects they haven't studied much, like Kim Jung Gi used to do when he was learning to draw, and place everything in perspective.
To examine this a little deeper; talent, in short, stems from positive associations from early childhood, plus a good memory. If you're above average intelligence, and you used to love drawing, but you haven't done so since childhood, you'll learn very rapidly. A month is not unrealistic for some, but those are exceptions and are not the norm. 4-6 months is more likely for anyone putting in the effort with average to above average intelligence.
Intelligence plus affinity (early childhood associations) is the two most likely causes of talent.
That's also why a 10 year old kid with an IQ of 120 will learn to spell and pronounce "category" instantly after reading it once without ever having read the word beforehand, but a person with mental retardation will possibly never be able to do so without some serious effort.
To outside observers, talent is buzzword jargon for people that don't put in effort. Anyone can learn to draw, but intelligence determine how fast, like with anything. It's not that difficult to understand, but people get self conscious about their lack of intelligence.
