[Arc]

I had always felt that I was an artist... until recently. From a very young age I had an affinity for art. I excelled in various art forms, and people have often recognized my talents. When I got older, I pursued a career in the arts by studying graphic design. Although I gave design my all, I never managed to develop a genuine interest in the craft. After graduation, I pursued jobs that required minimal artistic ability because I realized that creating commercial art left me terribly drained and unfulfilled. I am working now as a graphic designer, but most of the work is purely technical, and there is little art involved. I prefer it this way, but am looking into other career options.

For the past year, I had lost all desire to create art. I tried to write, but even that felt like a chore which I could not keep up. In an effort to ignite the artistic spark again, I dragged myself to the Art Gallery, and explored the city for inspiration. All I got out of the art gallery was a headache. The hundreds of paintings and sculptures were met with indifference. I felt detached from these supposed great works of art. The exhibitions in the city left me cold and unmoved.

This really got me thinking: Am I still an artist? I can only name very few artists (of any medium) whose work has really inspired and touched me on a deeper level. I never cared to become a renown artist, and never related to the art community of which many of its members obsess over receiving approbation from their peers. My focus has shifted from uncompromising self-expression to finding meaningful work. Although I can't say whether this artistic torpor will last permanently, I feel that it may be many many years before any desire for artistic expression will return, if it ever does.



Has anyone else grown out of art?

[strawberryLola]

I can certainly relate. When I was a kid, I'd win awards for art. My teachers would enter my artwork, and I'd win competitions in high school/the college level. I never had to try, but I never felt quite passionate about it- although it's a nice hobby.

Do you think that it could be because you're growing into a more well-rounded person, who wants to expand their horizons? I know as an NP, I tend to get bored of whatever I learn and need to move onto the next thing.. could that be it?

I think in my case, my lack of passion in art could also be due to depression (from situational causes) or dysthymia.

Besides that, I tend to get bored when I have to be constantly tactile. Graphic design for me did not fit my idealistic needs for what I value in a career..

[ladydahl]

I can relate in a lot of ways. I was in broadcast communications for 6 years as a career. Yes, I felt like I outgrew art and the field entirely. I was tired of the "art" being meaningless in the videos produced, while being pressured by corporate people. The economy became worse and it was one of the fields hit first and hardest. So, I decided to move on do a job where the work was more plentiful and outlook was better. I did find that, but several years later, am wistful about what I once did. Although at the time, it was like I left my old field running screaming, lol. I'm now in a position where I can make a change but not sure if I have the courage to. Also, I have 2-3 years before truly needing to make that decision. Anyway, I'm sharing this with you b/c I've BTDT and here it's 7 years after I've left.

[Arc]

StrawberryLola, I definitely feel it is because I am growing into a more well-rounded person that my interest in art is fading. I also get bored of things after a while, and feel compelled to move on to other things, new experiences. I devoted too much of my time and energy striving for some artistic ideal that, as a consequence, all other aspects of my life had suffered.

Ladydahl, I also had a brief stint in broadcast communications. It was interesting for a time since it provided an escape from the dreaded print medium. But like you, I began to feel that the nature of the work was vapid and meaningless. Eye-popping images to catch people's eye, entice them to buy, increase ratings, all the while suppressing my voice and point of view. I never watch television, anyway. I felt like an entertainer, though I discovered through subsequent experiences that I'm a teacher/mentor by nature. I really don't see myself going back; it would be like taking a step backward for me.

[ladydahl]

Interesting, Arc, that you also feel more like a teacher/mentor by nature. I have at least some of that and have done a lot of training in previous jobs, along with whatever primary functions I had.

[Boots]

I have a kind of opposite perspective that may or may not be useful to you...

I always did art and was good at it, when that crucial point of decision came in university I pursued science over art (for many reasons, including family conditioning and the fact that I thought making a career of art would make it lose it's lustre for me). Well the unexpected thing was that I got into such an intense science-based program that there was NO time for doing art for a period of several years. At the end of that I was no longer good at the art. Literally - I couldn't draw half as well as before my science education. I attribute this to a highly intense period of heavy left-brained function on a daily basis. When I started doing art again (taking very basic courses in drawing initially with right-brain techniques) it all came back, and I realized how much I had missed it. I need to do it - and now I do it as a second job, and I will never again let it slip away.

In your case you've continued to do art - but is it the same art that used to intrigue you? For me graphic design is a completely different creature - I've dabbled but I don't like it. I like portraiture and realism and they engage a very different part of my mind than graphic design. Also there's the question of plain burn out - where you ~have~ been doing it for other people for so long I think that's a real possibility. Have you considered what you might pursue art-wise if you didn't have to do it for anyone else... if someone gave you a studio and unlimited supplies and told you to go to town?

Also.... loss of creativity (which I'd consider the desire to do artistic endeavors) is a bit different than loss of ability. Burnout, depression, being in a rut, external social and environmental factors all can cramp or suppress creativity.

~ Boots ~

[Arc]

If I was given a studio with unlimited supplies, I would probably want to dabble with everything. Mastering a medium is unimportant to me. I just want an outlet to express myself. As for losing my abilities, I'm not too concerned about that. Drawing comes naturally to me, and I never had to work at it much. But of course, I would become better at it if I did it more often.

[prufrok]

Artists and writers have considered the art/life binary for some time now. If you live entirely in your art, you'll eventually burn out. Your art will be starved of life. And if you then return to life, thinking yourself done with art forever, you will quite possibly find that life on this planet is so harsh that one needs art like one needs water. I think the life of the artist is this continual travelling between water and thirst.

A good story to read that speaks to these issues is Edgar Allan Poe's "The Oval Portrait."

[OrangeAppled]

Graphic design has sucked out some of my joy in art also...... I still love art, I just don't find myself with the energy or inspiration to do the art I want to do. Commercial art is very draining, with little personal payoff. You're just the little robot that does what the client wants, often for some product or business or subject that is incredibly dull.

However, art in general is definitely still a big interest of mine. I'm still an appreciator. Funny, because only now, at a point where I am not creating much of anything do I feel okay with calling myself an artist of sorts. I've realized its a mindset .

[Arc]

The Poe was great. Thanks for the recommendation. He always manages to depict madness so well. It reminds me of a modern work of the same theme - Aronofsky's Black Swan.

It's interesting that so many of you find the process of creating art to be draining, particularly when it's impersonal. There appears to be an analogy between extroversion and introversion and the different types of artists. In social interactions, extroverts will feel charged while introverts drained. Similarly, some artists are charged by the act of creation, regardless of its purpose, while others are drained by the activity. I think most commercial artists fall into the former type of artist - they must be so in order to sustain the level of output required of them. However, for the latter, "introverted" artist, creating art perpetually is like speaking perpetually. As introverts speak sparingly relative to extroverts, and only when they have something substantial to say, artists of this sort would feel compelled to create only when they have something substantial to express from the core of their being. To create, or speak, for any other reason would feel extraneous. Now, I'm not suggesting that all "extroverted" artists are extroverts and all "introverted" artists are introverts. I use the terms extrovert and introvert for artists in reference to behavioral characteristics, rather than type preferences.