Being a contemporary artist with a very broad range of subject matter and 'styles', sometimes I wonder if this is a wise approach.  Would it be better to restrict myself to a safe comfort zone, where I could produce endless variations of my commercially successful range, for example?

Many artists just stick to a certain "look" and do endless variations on the same theme.  A good example is the talented John Coburn; nearly all his paintings have a relatively uniform background with a number of carefully arranged pleasant shapes, the usual oval circles, diamonds, and curvaceous forms.  Beautiful colours, subtle refinements.  No drama and no surprise but reliable good taste, lovely arrangement and immaculate execution.  In his exhibitions you see consistency and uniformity.  Galleries and art collectors just love this reliability. 

On the other hand, many artists go on a merry-go-round of exploration and experimentation.  They try different ways of seeing things, their imagination is not restricted to a single approach but get carried away with the process of discovering something never done before. Like Picasso did most of his life; dabbling in many different media and changing "styles" frequently and fervently.  Being carried away with the passion of the pursuit. His enormous talent and eventual acceptance by the public saved him from being called a scatter-brain or worst. 

So what is an artist without the reputation of a Coburn or Picasso to do?  Play safe and do "consistent"?  Or just carry on and get carried away with the passion of the chase, irrespective of how many completely different directions it leads to? 

For me, the only way to go is not "safe", but getting carried away with the passion of discovery!