Peaked creatively?

I've been struggling lately about whether I have the ability to maintain a creative outlook on all challenges that come my way.  Working full time for a company that sells the creative process (in my case the photographic and production of photography process) can be somewhat tiresome.  Going to work every day to produce quality, creative images at an expected level where most would see in editorial print is rather exhausting, then add to that the constant scrutiny and criticism of your contemporaries and peers (and clients) you'd think I have the skin of a rhino.  What's more, I maintain a self-employed status and offer my photography services commercially for clients as well.  Am I crazy?  Can I truly maintain an edge sharp enough to compete creatively with the new emerging talents in this industry as much as I desire too?  I recently read an article about how most creatives peak at a specific age in their career (here).  Arguments made, examples given, then left feeling lumped into some category of mediocrity with an enormously large number of individuals in this society, all clambering for some sense of success and greatness.  It seems I'm not alone in my quiet struggles, it seems many others read that article and feel similar to myself, but also seem to greatly agree with the argument that we all just peak creatively and that's all there is to it.  Why do I feel offended by it then?

Seems though that I don't 'like' or agree with the article much.  Yes I struggle, I will always admit that.  But to feel I have nothing else inside me to offer, spark or flame creatively just because I've reached a certain age?  Sorry, no!  Maybe it's how I was born, maybe it's because I haven't always enjoyed being lumped into categories of mediocrity, ever!  But please don't tell me that in your best estimate based on some mathematical standard I will no longer be able to be creative in the sense or standard of today's definitions.  Now, I'm not saying that I should be compared to the 'greats' of photography or art, nor am I saying that I can even hold a candle to some of the not-so-greats in my field.  My argument is more about that inner flame, the personal desire to create because that's what I was born with.  I want to create; when I was a young boy I wanted to draw, constantly, when I was in school I wanted to take pictures and study art, and that's all.  Now I'm lucky enough to do what I love every day for a living.  I continue to read and study about my field and learn and desire to do more.  I see other work, I'm inspired by others and I want to continue to produce.  It seems fairly simple because I think it is just that simple.  If there is a decline in the greatness of one's creative fire it seems it's only by the definition of the viewer.  I feel less accepting of a society to define anything as great when that same society has an average attention span of a 2 year old.  Ours is a country where you can be hoisted on someone's shoulders one minute then dropped on your head the next because someone got distracted by 'the next big thing.'

I don't need to be seen as a rock star photographer, nor do I have the desire to be recognized as a genius artist.  I also don't need to be told that I have peaked or am on a decline creatively because I'm reaching 40.  I know that I have a fire inside that burns to be creative and to create in my own way.  Yeah I'll be 40 soon, cool, I'll also want to continue to create images and be inspired do what I love at 40 as well.