[Aidevah]

>Also 35 isn't 65. This is the prime age for most business people, artists, writers, etc. This is typically a professional and creative peak that lasts, at least, another decade or so. A person this age often has the drive and vitality of youth but the wisdom of someone older. Its no wonder so many great works are created by people around this age.

The age of 35 does represents an important milestone for many artists; it is the age when their creativity fades in both intensity and volume. What used to arrive almost spontaneously now requires hard and conscious works. This is the age where even Mozart needed to increasingly rely on sketches, and some of those who relied on their youthful facility, such as Rossini, simply quit composition altogether. On the other hand, someone like Beethoven who always struggled with composition from the beginning of his career probably did not notice this creative slump (Beethoven's crisis came later in his mid-40s).

This barrier to creativity that arrives in the mid-30s is especially evident in the Romantic artists, not just Wordsworth and Coleridge, but also Holderlin, Schlegel, Chateaubriand and Senancour. Charles Rosen speculates that is is because the inspiration for the Romantics was "drawn directly from memories of adolescence, and as these memories receded into the past their evocation became more and more artificial, or else the writer found himself with a fully developed manner and no content."[1] In this sense I do believe 35 is in some ways "old" as it represents a paradigm shift in one's approach to the creative arts, and maybe life itself.

[1] Romantic poets, Critics and Other Madmen, 1998

[drzaiusapelord]

Those are all pre-modern people before the invention of vaccines and antibiotics and who had terrible health and suffered by now preventable childhood diseases. Their 35 is not our 35. Shakespeare, I believe, wrote about joint pain, aging, and losing his memory and mind at 35, which is not typical of a modern 35 year old. Substance abuse and artistry go hand in hand and a lot of these artists were addicts and drunks who badly damaged their brains. Many of them had mercury poisoning from medical treatments of their day and other edge cases not common today.

Not to mention these people were elite global competitors, so if they felt less sharp at 35, that means they were merely just the top 1% instead of being the top .1%. They still were amazing thinkers and producers after 35.

Just off the top of my head, Stanley Kubrick's career peaked with his decade plus long Lolita, Strangelove, 2001, and Clockwork Orange period in the 1960-70s, which was around his 30-40s. Then nearly 20 years after Lolita, well into his 50's he made The Shining, which is considered an important American film, perhaps not as groundbreaking as the others, but something miles ahead of his younger competitors. So even as these people supposedly age out of their peak years, these super high performers are still amazing. The Oscar winner that year? Kramer vs Kramer, a largely forgotten piece of art and "safe pick" that played to social issues of the time. The best screenplay? Breaking Away, a completely forgotten movie. The Shining is still a beloved classic, cultural icon, horror master-class, an iconic actor's defining role, and a movie studied in film school religiously today and for the foreseeable future.

Then almost a decade later in 1987 at age 59, he directed Full Metal Jacket, a lesser work, but considered one of the best anti-war films, arguably stealing or matching the crown from beloved critic favorites like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter, long after the 60s and 70s fad of anti-war movies faded away and Vietnam a now faded memory and during the right-wing, pro-military, pro-interventionist foreign policy Reagan administration. This was a bold and provocative move you'd associate with a younger director trying to get attention and not a man close to retirement. So even "old" Kubrick was competing on a world class level and doing interesting and challenging things.

A genre horror film from a famous director who hasn't delivered a great film in a decade? An anti-war film in the late 80s on the tail of Top Gun? Both of these genres were fads once and decidedly uncool at the time of their release. This on paper sounds almost foolish, but in practice, an artist of his calibre pulled off something very special in both cases.

For modern people, career peaks are mid-30s. The "wisdom" of two hundred old plus composers and poets is a nice toilet read but isn't scientific at all. Science has its own ideas about aging:

The journals Psychological Science, Science Direct, and Harvard claims various mental peaks come later in life. New vocabulary peaks at 67, learning new information at 50, concentrating at 43, learning new faces 32, etc.

https://nextluxury.com/mens-lifestyle-advice/what-age-do-men...

So yes 35 is not only a good age, its the start of a peak, and a 35 year old modern worker has still another two decades of high performance waiting for them.

[Aidevah]

I do not deny the existence of creative peaks after 35, which is of course not a rarity (just look up Elliott Carter for a truly awe-inspiring example). What I mean to say is that there seems to be a certain (mental? physiognomical? spiritual?) obstacle at 35 which affects all artists but especially those who relied on their precocity or talent which was more abundant in their early years. Those who cruised through their youth using the gifts they were born with are faced with a difficult decision in their 30s: they can either accept the decline in the rate and quality of their works or shift to methods which requires much more effort. Of course, not all artists were prodigies and they are not equally affected by this obstacle.

I don't know how sickness affects creativity, although quality of health has never seemed to be a disqualifying factor for the production of great works. Thomas Mann of course utilised this as his central idea in The Magic Mountain. The sickness of Schubert, Chopin and Beethoven does not see to have negatively impacted their creativity; Schubert seems even more sublime when he realised death was near, and Beethoven's deafness hasn't affected the quality of his late works.

The case of Shakespeare is peculiar in itself. If you read all his plays in sequence of composition, you would notice a certain weariness that becomes gradually apparent. Coriolanus, Timon of Athens and Troilus and Cressida contain an undisguised bitterness which is largely absent in the earlier tragedies (although you can glimpse a hint of it in Anthony and Cleopatra). The late romances, Winter's Tale and The Tempest, are of course unusually heavy in their subject matter. Harold Bloom interprets this as a certain melancholy in Shakespeare which made him weary of the theatre business altogether, which certain explains his early retirement. The health complaints in his 30s doesn't square with the fact that most of his greatest works were still to come at that stage.

[djkivi]

There should be a 20-year Academy Awards, for movies people still care about 20 years later. Stanley Kubrick's films would do very well in such a competition.