This question inspired my other question which I just asked.  I think creativity is in direct relation to talent which to me is not taught.  Not everyone is creative.  In college I took creative writing my Freshman year and the writing of 95% of the class was awful.  They had no talent and so they would end up with very generic poetry and short stories that had no meaning or emotion put into them and lacked the ability to invoke emotion from the reader.

In any discipline, whether it's music or design/artistry you have people who have the talent and the ability to transcend so much through what they do and you have a lot of people who like design and will study it but they lack the innate talent and their ultimate product is good but it's not great.

I follow a few authors on Twitter and one of them was asking her followers the other day for ideas.  This is why I don't like many authors because they have gone to school and understand the rules and framework of creative writing but they lack the innate talent to transcend an idea or struggle into their words.

Creativity without talent isn't useless as that's what most people are but the greats throughout history in any discipline not only have the creativity but they have talent.  I don't think it's possible to become world renowned and timeless simply through going to school and practicing a lot.  Sorry I got a bit side tracked there but that's how I feel about creativity and although a lot of people try and get "inspired" I also think the true creatives are able to get inspired and become creative through the lens of their own life without needing a push.

To me creativity is not innate, it's fueled by inspiration i.e. The more you open up your mind to your surroundings, the more attention you pay, the more creative you'll get. Creativity is intimately linked to your senses and how receptive you are to them.