I always thought a talent is something that one has, something that even without any training this person can do. Of course I know and understand that with training the talent becomes better … develops and grows. So that is a good thing.
So then someone explain to me why the Britain’s Got Talent was won by a dog? Hey I have nothing against animals, and that dog was cute and entertaining, but with all the talent on display, the British audience chose a dog?
I think that these talent shows are then losing meaning. Used to be that a person with a talent won all this money (for instance the half a million for Britain’s got talent winners) and used it to develop their gift. So tell me, what more can this dog do?
Is it not quite ironic that the winner of BBC2 Young Musician 2012 – teenage cellist prodigy – was awarded £2,000! What a difference.
I think if these shows are to remain relevant, they may need to revisit the definition of the word talent – natural aptitude or skill – and then come up with rules so we do not get such ridiculous results as this last one.
I know some people who will want to shoot me because I think Pudsey should not have won. And Ashleigh did a great job training her dog … still I am dissatisfied with the results.
I think we need new voting rules!!