[font color=\'#000000\']Simply because Adams was a good technician does not mean he was not an artist as well. Most art requires a great deal of technical skill. Watching my sculpting teacher work, it is amazing how much she has had to learn: phyics, geology, a little engineering -- all to achieve her art. The amount of technique, and difficulty of learning it, will vary from art to art, of course.
Regarding the connection between prodigies and art. Hmm, it's interesting question! I guess it comes down to how hard it is for a child to grasp the basic skills of the artform, and how that relates to what the general population can do. For example, few people can play instruments. So a child prodigy who learns how to play quickly surpasses what most people will ever be able to do. Maybe the foundation skills for playing music are well suited for a child to grasp, so he can quickly understand 80% of the skills he will ever need. This is amazing to us, and makes a darn good news story.
But in photography, like DRM says, most people can take decent photos, so any child prodigies are just not as amazing to us. Maybe the skills behind photography are a little tougher for kids to grasp, so a prodigy can only grasp 40% of the skills, and then need the rest of his life to get the remaining 60%. So it takes longer for them to get THAT much better than the general population. I'm not sure -- but this would make a fascinating study![/font]