Prodigies versus late-bloomers

The current New Yorker has a fascinating article by Malcolm Gladwell that breaks creativity into two types: conceptual & experiential.

Prodigies--people like Mozart, Picasso, and Orson Welles--seem to arrive fully formed and able to produce groundbreaking work effortlessly. The do their best work when they are young. In comparison are folks who struggle to reach their potential and only achieve it relatively late in life: Cezanne is the poster child for this.

The idea is that experiential artists (such as Cezanne) have to work through things via trial & error, whereas conceptual artists (Picasso) simply conceive of the idea in a flash of inspiration.

The article left me wondering whether the resulting art is characteristically different. Are the experiential artists doing richer more complicated work? Is the designation of "conceptual" intended to mean that the prodigies tend to do more conceptual work (i.e., more concerned with intellectual ideas rather than aesthetic ones?)? Or are the artists taking different paths, but are arriving at the same destination?

If there is a connection between a conceptual-bent and artists who are a their peak early in their life, it may be one reason why the contemporary art world has a reputation for favoring artists who are under 30 years old.