It depends on what we mean by "creative". A person who's gone to the moon, say, is creat-ive when they write a book about what it was like. In that they are cr

It depends on what we mean by "creative". A person who's gone to the moon, say, is creat-ive when they write a book about what it was like. In that they are creating a new book, with new content, that could not be written by any one else. This places a certain sort of discovery at the heart of creativity; and I think that's what I find critical. Yes, a person is typically more "creative in their thinking", the more broadly read they are. But that "creativity" is just a repetition unless they make some discovery. Eg., a such as the impressionist painters, that visual perception is impressionistic -- that lead to a revolution in painting. Yes those artists were "well read" in that they'd probably seen a lot of art. And yes they could appear creative by being able to use that experience to paint. But real creativity came from discovery. And that's what animals are: fundamentally embedded into a world where each experience is a discovery; each moment of time is novel -- and we are all creativity adapting to it. For some, that discovery revolutionises an area and we call them "creative geniuses" -- but we're all doing the same thing. They're just skilled enough to capitalise on it