Some chicken-or-egg questions:
Is creativity a human need? New archeological evidence -a 100,000-year-old animal-bone paintbrush, 75,000-year-old shells with drilled holes for use as beads, a 300,000-year-old flint hand ax - tells us that creativity was a part of Paleolithic life.
Does creativity satisfy an individual need? That is, art for art's sake? Or because we're essentially a curious species?
Or does creativity satisfy the need to communicate? Is communication the basic need, with every creative act or idea a tool for communication?
If we know creativity was active in the Stone Age, has it been necessary to individual survival? Or to the survival of the species? We know that humans are like birds in their inherent ability to sing. The vocal mechanisms are similar; brain activity while singing is similar. We assume, then, that humans first sang for the same "reason" as birds sing - courtship. After the recent discovery, in both Indonesia and South Africa, of pre-historic axes that are too fragile or too heavy to be utilitarian, similar assumptions have been made. Perhaps they were created to demonstrate skill to potential mates.
Whatever the answer to any of these questions, doesn't it make sense to foster creativity? To create an educational system based on creativity?