I don't know, guys. Maybe it's because I come from a music background (where it is sometimes a little more obvious when someone just doesn't "have it" no matter how much analysis, practice and effort they put it), but while it is perhaps slightly too strongly worded to say not everyone is an artist, it's not far off. Certainly we can at least apply it to individual branches - ie not everyone is a photographer. Someone might love photography, but ultimately not be much of a photographer no matter how hard he/she bangs his/her head against the wall (or doesn't).

In the end a very small proportion of people practicing art are great artists. When someone tries to be way overly analytical about why it isn't working, trying to figure out how to discover his artistic subject, voice etc, some additional - even tougher - questions may be in order. We need to ask ourselves what our goals are. Do I have the talent to truly take this as far as I want it to go? Or should I just try to enjoy it as a hobby, do the best I can, maybe reassess at some point, but enjoy it.

Being an artist and a craftsman is hard work regardless of how much talent or vision someone has, but the hard work will take different people to different levels (as it does in music, athletics etc). So with all due respect I find it pretty simplistic when people suggest the answers to the creative problem expressed here lie with using less equipment, looking at less art, freeing yourself etc.

This will likely offend and piss off a lot of people, but that's art.