> It explicitly mentions that human activities are "nowhere near the whole story" I read this as being relating to artists (specifically graphical) rather than

> It explicitly mentions that human activities are "nowhere near the whole story" I read this as being relating to artists (specifically graphical) rather than the entire class of human activities. > even primitive organisms can be considered creative Must admit I missed this as the sentence was in what I thought was a plug for a book. > "creating something new or being original is an essential part of creativity" This didn't really mean anything to me. Most the article was explained using specific examples which were human specific activities and for me that was the main thrust. Perhaps it wasn't the authors intention but that is the impression it left on me even re-reading it.