Do people only have a certain amount of creativity they're

>>81068138
But for every artist that burned out I can think of a bunch that didn't. For every, Francois Truffaut, there's a JLG, yknow?

>>81068138
In the beginning Lucas had a lot of help.
He was just the director not the almighty creator.
StarWars and Indian Jones were both inspired by similar shows like BuckRodgers and Doc Savage.
When they gave him full creative control StarWars and Indian Jones turned to shit.

It's tough to be creative in something you're no longer inspired by. I don't think there's a limit to creativity but everyone gets sick of something eventually even if they don't admit it.

It's been said that an artist peaks in their late '30's or early '40's

>>81068138
Most people produce their best creative content early in life because they do their passion projects first, and as they run out of those projects they turn to lesser creative projects that they aren't as passionate about, thus diminishing quality.

Not to mention there are factors such as getting an ego and thinking you're hot shit after a few successes, thus causing you to lose your original critical lens that helped craft your earlier creative works.

And then also you usually have more drive earlier on, and less resources to make your creative works happen, thus you put more effort into it and get a better result.

Also you get older, and that means becoming less efficient.

It seems that way with a lot of music, although that may be more of a property of the forms of the late 20th century (rock n roll, pop, hip hop), which seemed to require a more youthful energy and outlook.

Certain filmmakers have remained good, but I think demands of the industry wear many of them down and they get boring. The very journey of attempting to get a project funded and greenlit and produced is a titanic undertaking in itself, the quality or inspiration of the project itself aside.

Visual artists tend to actually have lifetime-spanning periods of inspired creativity though. I think it's that what an artist has to personally work through and distill to develop their practice is necessarily so slow and painstaking it doesn't really bear fruits until their late 20s into their 30s, and only really begins then. By then the object of their work and their relationship to it is so rich that they can basically build a full career on it.

artists tend to only have a certain number of ideas to explore, and a certain number of ways to explore them. for a select few, this allows for a lifelong fruitful career. for the rest, they peak and spend the rest of their career retreading what they've already done.

>>81068466
That's common. Most people in their careers don't see success until their 30s or 40s, sometimes even 50s.

I think some people also just end up getting stuck in their ways the older they get, so they experiment less, take fewer risks, and end up making the same things they usually do

No, I think it's just the fact that pure creativity isn't enough

Assuming you create full-time, you don't create full-time-- you spend most of your time learning and maneuvering as an entrepreneur representing a business or a brand, navigating legal terms and deals and networking events and whatever the fuck you have to do and compromise to make sure you can keep getting away with it. I'd bet on my life that's what wears down 99% of artists nowadays, and ever

>>81068567
Exactly. Especially in fine arts.

Music demands you to come out in your 20s so the form by nature is usually more quick impact and young. There's almost no way to know what you want to do as a fine artist at age 20. How are you possibly supposed to have a strong aesthetic take on life by then? You might have a good style that you kind of mindlessly threw together in art school, but it'll be very one dimensional and if you get attention you won't be able to deliver on new ideas under pressure.

>>81068931
I wish I could be successful in film/art in my 20s but it just seems like it's something that takes into your 30s and 40s. The cases of teenager and 20 year olds doing big stuff is a tiny minority, but it's annoying.

Woody Allen reinvented his style.
Kubrick.
Lucas brainstormed Star Wars, but he didn't create all of it. He worked with a team. He just gets all the credit because he kept all the rights. The problem was he isolated himself too much. By the time episode 1 came out, no one dared tell him - this is fucking stupid.

File: 1472415758961.jpg (137KB, 681x495px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 681x495px

>>81068138
I don't think Lucas lost his creativity, he's just terrible at directing, editing and he's super tismo about minor things.

Miyazaki

/thread

There's a lot of creativity within a person. But as they get older, their ideas get stale.
>>81069372
Some exceptions, of course.

>>81069284
The problem with Lucas is more that he has boundless creativity, but not much talent, and with the OT he had the benefit of more talented friends to help filter it and make it palatable. With the PT and Special Editions, however, he had yes men who let him run around unleashed, spewing his creativity everywhere.