>>6200478
>age (31)
Why on Earth do you think that's part of the issue? The only reason most of the old masters started as children (or "started" as in joining an art community, college or apprenticeship in their late teens or early twenties, having been self-taught up to that point) is that most people who would become masters were those with an inborn PASSION for artistry, as even during the era of patronage it was not an easy path through life for most. These were men who became artists because as children or adolescents in an environment where they had many choices of what work to which their hands would be dedicated (as in the case of da Vinci) or even in an environment where they were meant to be doing something radically different (as in the case of Michelangelo), they chose to dedicate their time to painting the things they saw. If you were not like this, and you want to attain mastery, rather than being a defeatist dwelling on the things you think might hold you back, the lesson I would take from their stories is instead that you should examine why exactly you wish to create art now when you did not as a child. Nothing is holding you back, but if you're starting at 31 something tells me that some social trend, rather than genuine passion, has stoked you to pursue this.
The handful of names who started later in life mostly ended up doing art as an amateur (regardless of the fact that they became very proficient at it) after retirement, a career shift or a loss of another hobby, like Charles Dellschau and Grandma Moses. These were people who did not pursue drawing and painting out of an inborn passion for it before other subjects, but to fill a hollow that formed in their later lives.