) As a result maybe you haven't put in the hours and focused thought that a lot of people with the "it" factor have. They may have started off playing with different things, maybe even for a long time, but at some point they shifted into buckling down and narrowing their playing field and they started tons of more focused work, a lot that they might not even show anyone. Lot's and lot's of sketches and/or finished piece. Tons. They really hash out ideas, subjects, and mediums. They probably have made a lot of not so great art in that process. Yes they may explore with different things and may not exclusively stick to the same things, but they have put in the hours to know how to manipulate their work in certain ways, and can focus more on emotional impact.
I am reading Norman Rockwell’s autobiography (thank you @davidhohn) and he talks about a cover illustration that he did in which he put a lot of care and personal emotion and was surprised when it generated a lot of negative responses. He concludes by commenting that he just could never tell which of his illustrations would touch a chord with people and which would not. I suspect this is the danger of any creative endeavor: I’ve been preaching for 35 years and have yet to figure out why some sermons really touch people and others, even ones I love, fail to garner much of a response. I think audiences bring a lot of their own selves to the viewing/listening and if one piece gets a more general positive response maybe it’s because that piece hit on a more universally held emotion.
The way I’ve dealt with the unpredictability of knowing whether people will respond to my sermons (which I think of as painting illustrations with words) is to make sure I’m preaching something that means something to me so that even if it means nothing to anyone else, I will have benefited from it! Of course, I have a captive audience and don’t have to try to sell my work so it’s a much tougher situation if you are an artist.