two kinds of artists

I was listening recently to Adam Buxton's interview with Malcolm Gladwell. About 27 minutes in Gladwell starts talking about two kinds of artists; either like Picasso, or like Cezanne. To me, the Picasso type represents an eclectic range of expression, traversing different art forms, restless, a monkey on his back etc. Whereas, Cezanne and artists like him, I consider as the kind driven by an interest in form rather than a need for expression, devoting themselves to the slow, diligent mastery of their craft. Definitely not me, by the way. Before I come to Gladwell, it's got to be said that as convenient as it is for curators and art historians to divide art into distinct form v expression camps, creative endeavour resists pigeonholing. It's too nuanced. Picasso, who represents a pinnacle of artistic achievement, did everything in his long career. Gladwell's take is interesting. Picasso to him represents the artist who very early knows their mission, is clear sighted on what they're setting out to achieve and wastes no time getting down to their task. Picasso and artists of his ilk, therefore do much of their great work early in their careers. Cezanne and artists like him, other than knowing their need to create, aren't clear about their identity as an artist. They have to work through their calling patiently for many years. Consequently, Cezanne doesn't produce his best work until towards the end of his career, in his fifties and sixties. This is the camp I'm in. Mine has been a very dogged, frequently frustrating, sometimes extremely rewarding story of twists and turns over thirty odd years which I believe is starting to flower into something consistent and resonant. What about you? If you're a creative, where do you sit on Gladwell's Picasso / Cezanne divide? Has it taken you a long time to find your artistic chops, or were you up and running at an early age?