I think the word "creative" implies making something new, and in the realm of ideas, mathematicians, programmers, and scientists are creating new ideas all the time - they are some of the most creative people on the planet.

Rather than a competition between "creativity vs math", I think it's more-so "art vs math" - or even more specifically, "expressions of preference vs expressions of necessity".

In other words, I think what really defines "art" is that it is an expression of preference, or what the artist deems to be beautiful or poignant. Whereas what defines "logic" is that it is an expression of necessity, ralative to desired outcomes (the "desired" part being an expression of art).

Artists encounter decisions of "logic" all the time. For instance, if they desire to paint something green, they will be forced by necessity to somehow blend blue and yellow.

But I think the struggle for artists today largely stems from the fact that most art can be digitally copied and distributed. Some of the richest people in the world are artists (e.g. Taylor Swift) - but they take all the wealth for themselves because their performances are recorded for people to listen to over and over, rather than having to hire live music.

Most of your article was about writing, so I'll touch on that. All the reading I've done on Medium has me convinced that most of our beloved writers of the past are really not that special at all, because I've been exposed to so many interesting ideas and perspectives on Medium. So I think the ability to think and write critically is very much alive. It just doesn't pay that well, except for a select few writers who break through to stardom, and have their work read by everyone, while most writers are only read by a handful.

Society still very much values art, it's just that our needs are generally met by a very select few "rock stars", which makes it very hard for most artists to make a living on their art.