Is There A Creative Age?

I often revisit books that have interested me in the past, finding new insights  I missed in an earlier reading.  Lately, I've found myself going back to a book by Martin S. Lindauer, titled Aging, Creativity, and Art: A Positive Perspective on Late-Life Development. 

Lindauer's research questions the assumption that creativity peaks in youth, and begins to fade by the age of 30, often referred to as the decline model.  Much of his research shows - from various perspectives - that what we identify as creativity persists throughout life, and can actually increase and manifest in new ways with age, arguing that "Aging therefore enhanced rather than stifled artistic expression."

I find this idea of particular importance to artists who have entered the field, or are contemplating entering the artistic field at the age of 50 or older.

While all of Lindauer's research is based on the life-time work of renowned artists who began in their 20's and are (or were, in the case of deceased artists) still working at age 60 through 80, I wanted to see what insights I could discover for artists who were starting at age 50.

Regardless of whether the artist was male or female, from the Renaissance, the 1800's, or 20th Century,  I noticed from the graphs of data that productivity and quality increased for at least three decades from the starting age.  So artists who began their careers at age 20, were generally regarded to be at their best by age 40 to 50.

Could it be possible that the three decade similarity actually described the time frame an artist needed to develop the full range of insights and skills in order to perform at the top of his or her ability, and not the peaking followed by the gradual decline of creativity? 

Other graphs indicate that particularly long-lived artists had two or more peaks, explained by early productivity, a stagnation or decrease in productivity, and then a second or third resurgence of creative output.  

This is exciting to me.  Think about this the idea.  If creativity manifests itself throughout our lives, and if an artist has at least two to three decades of enthusiastic, concentrated effort ahead of them before extreme old age impacts their ability to work, why shouldn't we expect a similar pattern of achievement for the artist who starts at age 50 that we expect from the artist who starts at age 20? 

Are we poised on the cusp of a unique time when the next great artistic movement comes not from the young, but from artists who do not pick up a paint brush until after the age of 51?

Intriguing thought, isn't it?

In that regard, I was pleased to see that Southwest Art Magazine followed up their first Emerging Artists Search, titled "21 under 31" with a second Emerging Artists Search titled "21 over 31", although this suggests that if the first search focused on artists aged between 20 and 31, the  second search implies an age bracket of 31 to 42. 

It's a step in the right direction to acknowledge that artists can emerge at a later age.

But I would be really excited if a major art magazine published an Emerging Artists Search titled "21 over 51."  I'd be willing to bet the art will be just as innovative, accomplished, visionary or spiritual as any in the younger brackets.  In fact, it might be better.

But that's my bias. 

I found this excerpt from a poem by Longfellow, titled Morituri Salutamus:

"For age is opportunity, no less
Than Youth itself, though in another dress,
And as the evening twilight fades away
The sky is filled with stars, invisible by day."

Comments

[Ivan]

The art world, critics, magazine publishers and writers just love to classify and pigeon hole artists based on their age or number of years working.
Artists' output,quality and maturity is as varied as humans in general and age can have little to do with it.
Turner was already an amazing draughtsman in his teens. Did he go downhill in his later years when he produced those flamboyant paintings that did not depend his meticulous drawing skills?
The whole subject of age, maturity and quality of art is so subjective anyway.
Beware of anyone who puts forth any of this dogma.
Do not give them the power to control you.
PS, I intensly dislike the term '' emerging artist ''.
Emerging from what? A darkened room, total obscurity, total heretofore disinterest in spite of all the years slogging away in an isolated garret? Again another effort to catagorise. Don't let them.

[Deborah Paris]

Although I started my art career at about 40, I think you are on the right track in terms of how long it takes for one's work to mature. Although I have been painting for almost 20 years now(leaving out the first bit up to age 21) its only been in the last 3-5 years that my "mature" work, the work I am meant to do and expand on for the rest of my life, has appeared.

[vivien]

Of course you keep on improving, being more creative and innovative!!!

A few years ago I went to an exhibition of Cezanne, arranged in chronological order. The first years were really disappointing - rather heavy and uninspiring - his late works though were wonderful. Monet too kept on pushing forward.

At my degree show

(I was a mature student amongst a very small group of other mature students, in classes with the majority of the usual age)

I won a purchase prize for a large painting and the runners up were also mature students ... and also female :>)

I have to admit to enjoying pointing this out to one tutor who I always felt had a slight problem with mature students/females :>D , we felt a bit second-class-citizen with him

- all the other tutors were fine and treated us no differently

I feel my work has improved and developed since then and hope it continues

[Miki Willa]

Thanks for sharing this article and your own information. As a late starter in the art world, I look forward to many happy years of creating art.