Creativity is dependent on recognition?

His name might have been Edward Something, but I can’t remember for sure.

The creativity of those whose activities are merely for recognition and approval of others will only find satisfaction when the products they create have value in the marketplace. While the approval of others is important, creativity is primarily for the satisfaction of the individual.

This sounds like a variation on Mihaly Csikszentmilahyi’s “systems” theory of creativity. He proposed that creativity isn’t something that exists at the individual level alone, but that creativity is the function of a dynamic system having three parts: a cultural milieu with an established framework of symbols and rules, an individual who breaks new ground, and a field of experts who recognize and endorse that innovation. He argues that it’s the interaction of all three of these elements that constitutes creativity, and that none is dispensable.

From that “systems” perspective, it could certainly be the case that validation by the field of experts might happen well after the death of the individual innovator, in which case the recognition completes the requirements for creativity only after the individual is gone.

Of course, “Mihaly Csikszentmilahyi” doesn’t sound remotely like “Edward Something”, but I’m guessing that the article you read derived in some way from Csikszentmilahyi’s theory.