i would also like to make a comment on chelsea's question Do you think famous artists produce better or worse work because of the pressures on them to keep being great?

I think that artists who have already produced something amazing, are under a great deal of pressure to produce more work of that caliber, and in some cases, their work is not as great.
For this, I would like to use the example of a close idol of mine, Peter Jackson. He directed, produced etc. the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. And when these movies came out, they were so well done, so fantastically executed, stunning, and highly praised. The last installment even won 13 oscars, including best picture. But what is the moral of this story?? DONT MAKE SOMETHING SO INCREDIBLY AMAZING THAT EVERYONE EXPECTS EVERYTHING YOU DO IN THE FUTURE TO BE EVEN BETTER. Because although Lord of the Rings was a triumph, it gave the public such a high expectation of Peter Jackson to create things that were even better than that. And then he came out with KING KONG as his next film, and the world was greatly disappointed. (well not disappointed, but probably a little let down, cuz it wasn't as awesome on every level)

But that is just the case when the pressure is extreme. When the pressure is not as much, or when the quality of the work could benefit from improvement, then the artist is encouraged and motivated to improve and do better than before.

So things are a bit dependent on the caliber of the work.

My question right now is what is an artist to do once they have reached the peak of their performance and can no longer improve?