Do You Feel Like a Late Bloomer? This May Explain Why

You may be an experimental creative rather than a conceptual creative.

I’ve always considered myself a late bloomer. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that in some areas I’m actually a never-bloomer haha. And I’m mostly okay with that. But one area I feel behind in that has caused me considerable anxiety over the years is my writing. Many of the novelists I admire first published in their twenties. While there are examples of writers who found success later in life, it’s generally assumed that creative potential peaks early for most, and that if you haven’t taken advantage of it while you’re still fairly young, your chance is over. Except that’s not true. A recent study (Weinberg and Galenson, 2019; open access) has shown that there are two types of creatives, one that does indeed do their best work early on, and a second type that peaks later. Much later. You could be a late bloomer because that’s just how you roll. And take note, those of you who don’t consider yourselves creatives: this has implications in all realms of human endeavor, so keep reading.

The two types of creatives are conceptual and experimental. Conceptual creatives work deductively: they come up with an a priori vision of what they want to accomplish and then work to see it realized. Writers who plot out their novels ahead of time and use outlines are conceptual. Experimental creatives work inductively: they draw inferences from what already exists and build from it incrementally, often without any idea of where it might take them. Discovery writers, or “pantsers,” are experimental. Not only can experimental creatives take far longer to produce their work – because they don’t necessarily have a specific end goal in mind and tend to need time to process each step along the way – but they also don’t produce their best work until comparatively much later in life. In fact, it has been shown that they peak in their fifties. In their fifties, you guys! That is a full thirty years later than conceptual creatives, according to the study.

This genuinely should be boggling your mind. It is so contrary to our assumptions and expectations regarding the creative and productive capacities of human beings that it seems almost unbelievable. So let it sink in for a minute. If you are a late bloomer, particularly if you are an experimental-style creative, it could be because you are building up your creative power over decades, not because you’re lazy, untalented, or any other negative self-talk you’ve fallen into.

Now, I don’t want conceptual creatives to think I’m slamming them. Many conceptual types continue to produce great work over their lifetimes, and often they become more experimental as they gain in experience. What is important about this study is its implications for understanding how experimental creatives develop: they may not even begin a creative practice until comparatively late in life. The reason for this is that what feeds their creativity is accumulated life experiences and knowledge. They tend to view their creative practice as integral to a broad array of life experiences, and they often prefer not to know where they’re going. The question “Where do you see yourself in five years?” is not only anathema to experimental creatives, it doesn’t even make sense. Many experimental types would say that their true creative work is their own life, of which their specific creative practice, or art, is one part.

Conceptual creatives are the opposite: their clear vision of where they are headed means that for them the creative process is a thing unto itself, perhaps informed by life but separate from it. In our culture we tend to envision the creative process as being conceptual in style: someone alone in a room for hours every day, apart from the world, typing maniacally or throwing paint on a canvas. But this is not at all what the creative process looks like for experimental creatives. They may spend comparatively less time actually doing the creating part of creativity, because most of their work involves the observing, learning, feeling, thinking, and processing that happens before, during, and after the act of creation. They create through a trial and error process, adapting as they go. They are the deep thinkers of the creative world, while conceptual creatives are the big dreamers. Both types are equally likely to create unique and groundbreaking work, they just go about it differently and have different timelines (and of course many creatives are a mix of both types).

Part of the struggle for experimental creatives is that our culture is skewed toward a preference for the conceptual style. We don’t like working without a plan and don’t appreciate products that emerge slowly and unpredictably. We like having a clear vision to apply our efforts toward and outcomes that match expectation. Experimental creatives have a natural fluency with uncertainty and ambiguity – two conditions that scare the crap out of us collectively as a culture, and thus we denigrate and deny. In such an unwelcoming environment it’s not uncommon for experimental creatives to struggle for years, if not decades, not only to develop their voice and style, but to feel confident about their own process. If this is you, keep going! You’ll get there. Your best work lies ahead.