classifying creativity

Recently, I have been thinking about the word creative. It struck me recently that the word is fairly ill-defined, or perhaps too broadly defined to be very meaningful. Most people seem to agree that creativity is something valuable, having vaguely to do with generating unique ideas and expressions.

Consider, however, creativity of the sort that a scientist uses in developing an effective study and how it compares to the creativity of a painter. We may call a stage actor creative, and also praise a business leader for her creative approach to structuring her division. Are we really describing a comparable attribute in these two examples? It feels to me like we've just given a single name to two completely different concepts.

One of the relationships that I've been thinking about lately is between author and performer. The act of writing a work (music, play, film, etc.) undeniably demands creativity. Anybody who performs seriously knows that the same can be said of performance. Performing a piece with committment requires a dedicated, personal knowledge of the work, and an intimate sense of ones self. Indeed, our task as performer's is to communicate that which the page alone cannot do, and this requires creative drive in a very real sense. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, the performer is still ultimately interpreting. Can it be said that the author is ultimately engaging in a more creative task by creating something from nothing? We occassionally see a performance that shatters this notion, but on the whole, does it have some merit?

Creative or not, I'm just thankful for opportunities to perform. There really is nothing else like it.

As always, I'd love to hear some of your thoughts.