18/10/2026
What does it mean when an artist makes recognisably similar work for twenty, thirty or forty years? Are they pursuing something that takes a lifetime to understand, or continuing with something they already know how to do? I’m uncomfortable with my own question. It risks mistaking consistency for complacency, or assuming that artists owe us regular reinvention. What looks repetitive from outside the studio may contain distinctions that only become apparent when we give the work proper attention.
Yet persistence isn’t automatically a virtue either. Familiarity can become a shelter, particularly when there is a market for what an artist already makes. How do we judge whether the work is still developing, and how much does our judgement depend on whether we like it?
‘When Does Persistence Become Inertia?’ is on my Substack. Link in bio.