This was interesting. My background is that I'm a creative artist ("one of them pesky painters") who has to eat, and due to this has been forced to work in seve

This was interesting. My background is that I'm a creative artist ("one of them pesky painters") who has to eat, and due to this has been forced to work in several IT related areas for the past three decades or so, employed as well as self employed. Reading this piece I was struck by the thought - "hey shouldn't this be about creativity, and now he's off to talking about physics and math in stead?" It's true that while working in "problem solving" fields you may sometimes feel that you are doing something creative. I mean, you actually come up with this solution to that issue which did apparently not exist previously. So, you did "create" something. However, a painter (and/or a writer, or dancer, musician, any other "pure creative") does not have that luxury of a pre existing problem that is in need of a solution. S/he has to invent both the problem and the solution - and more often than not (IMHO) such problems are extremely abstract, to the point that one that observes the solution (eg a painting) will hardly be able to even guess which general type of problem that solution may offer a perspective on. So, that was one thing. Another is that being a painter is not a career. Physics, math, sciences in general has a lot of different career paths to choose from, so if you have that general inclination you will no doubt be able to support yourself (get food) while doing stuff related to your interests. In painting, not so. The best you can hope for is that someone will note your work long after you're dead and gone. It does not pay the bills (except for rare exceptions which are just that). I think that would be my two cents