Most of us even once in life called someone a "genius". The implication of this word is usually positive. We associate this word with images of Plato, Blaise Pascal. These people seemed to have genius the meaning of which is defined in the dictionary: somebody who has extraordinary intellectual ability and creative power. However, the dictionaries do not help much for they include to many variations on the definition which conflict with each other. Vincent Van Gogh had unbelievable talent and he has been considered to be a genius for a long time. Would somebody still think so if he or she knew that he was a horrible learner, and he had worked many years in galleries before started painting himself? His works were not for self-satisfaction, he want to make a career very much and to get a living from his paintings. But he was absolutely incompetent at selling his painting, though he had a gallery experience and his brother was an art dealer. He concentrated all his attention on portraits selling of which could bring him a considerable amount of money. However, there were no interested people, even though the price was very low. Nobody paid attention to his works.

If taking in account the previous information, would somebody still think that Van Gogh was a genius? According to the dictionary he really was a genius, but his peers didn't think so. This means that creativity and originality are not enough for being a genius, something is missing. There must be some more features which characterize a genius and distinguish him from ordinary people. Genius is not an objective term. Genius exits subjectively inside the human mind and not objectively. It is generally used to denote people whose intelligence is above average.