Ming's got another think piece up, which is so utterly wrong headed as to inspire to me rebut it.
He starts off by talking about "total impact" which is, essentially, how much of your work is "consumed" by others, although he doesn't quite realize that's what he's saying. And then, incredibly, he measures the degree to which someone is a "creator" by this metric, essentially, how much of your work is consumed by others. While that's certainly measuring something, it's not measuring anything about creativity or any of the other things we associate with the word "creator."
By this measure, the Ford Motor Company is a mighty photographer, and Sally Mann is a nobody. Johannes Vermeer, having only 34 paintings only one of which anyone recognizes, is a nobody, while Ming Thein with his millions of shitty pictures and 100s of thousands of sock puppets is a mighty creator.
Ming's "total impact" is about marketing, not about creativity. It's not about being a creator at all, although occasionally the two exist in the same person. Often not, being really creative takes up a lot of time, and so does marketing. To really excel at both is extremely hard.
He implies broadly that a true creator generates far more work, in some sense, than he consumes. The "creator" is defined by consuming less and creating more, which is utterly wrong-headed. Creatives consume far more than the average consumer. Writers generally read voraciously. Photographers collect monographs, and actually look at them regularly.
Creatives consume, as a general rule, far more in absolute quantity, and in much greater depth. It is, arguably, their job.
Ming is not describing creators, he's describing himself: an arrogant little snot who doesn't bother to look at anything, read anything, think about anything, because he's got all the answers.