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.
I agree about music - which works best when it isn't analytical (classical and some jazz aside). It can be more difficult in art however to recognise the *showings* of 'greatness' I think (maybe we shouldn't use that word). There are plenty of examples of precocious upstarts who were shot down in the beginning - whether it be actors, painters, photographers - who went on to have success. This is just my view of the myths of genius and greatness. We all start out with an idea of a shortcut to success, and maybe, I'm searching for a philosophical magic bullet. I'll admit I'm lazy.
Personally, I'd be quite happy if I only ever had a small following - so long as they have taste!
Some creative types simply don't have taste, visual taste, and are ignorant or disinterested in the work of others and the broader arts. They might have the 'urge to create', they might be productive, but I think everyone agrees that's not enough. You can make a prediction about potential here I think, mostly based on that personality type - the comfort they find in simple productivity and validation - it really is like a child with crayons. I won't mention her name, but there is a popular photographer on Flickr, whose work still has the same tremendous following, but hasn't matured at all in the 4 years since I left that website. It's quite odd really, considering she clearly did have a natural artistic soul and showed promise to begin with. It's also strange to recognise that I loved a few photographers on Flickr when I started out, but now see much of it as naive, visually illiterate even, as my tastes and knowledge of the art have developed. Some people clearly don't move beyond 'the Flickr stage', shall we call it. They will never be serious photographic artists.
I'll say that I've had encouragement from talented artists, but I still think "what do they know?". Because they've only seen what I've done, rather than what I *think* I'm capable of! I won't say that mentality separates the creatives from the artists, but I am surprised how many don't harbour that need to keep pushing to new heights. But desperation can set in when the summit is always obscured by fog, and sometimes you have no choice but to set up camp for a while! That's where I'm at. The clear headed comments here have helped me recognise this. I'll probably head back to basecamp if it doesn't clear, but I'll say I have seen glimpses, which is why I keep going.
Please watch this to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU2ftCitvyQ
(and oh, it's Yosemite in the video too! Quite aptly
)