Except for those under the tutelage of a "master" or in a historically fertile environment (Paris 1900's, New York 1940-50, etc.), visual artists on average tend not to find a mature "voice" until they hit their mid-thirties.
Artistic maturity is in essence having a solid base of work experience, a toolbox of seamless solutions to the craft of creating a work of art. In my opinion and this is the point, it's because visual art is the least intuitive, most contrived of the creative disciplines.
The practice of galleries and speculators in looking for the next "art star" genius straight out of art school consistently disappoints because schools don't teach how to make amazing, relevant artworks. They merely expose students to possibilities and to each other, the real work begins later. The chances of acquiring a really terrific Rock band at an art school are much greater.
In my final year I remember the owner of a prestigious local venue telling another soon-to-be graduate exactly what to paint to show in his gallery. She looked ready to burst into tears, it was also the last I saw or heard from her. Although common, fishing in this manner hit new heights with English art collecting impresario Charles Saatchi, whose gift it is to elevate anonymous neophytes to national treasures with a wave of his check book. He is soon set to host a reality TV show on "picking the winners". Early on Saatchi is credited with discovering the likes of Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, et al. which has really given his street cred traction.
Bad practices only contribute to the cynicism and disinterest the public in general feel toward visual art. The mind blowing potential often becomes a mind numbing experience.