Creating Creatives

I wanted to be a writer when I was growing up. It made the most sense. I loved words and reading, I enjoyed storytelling and how it was capable of pulling you into another sense of being - a new world or character. I would've enjoyed being a singer/songwriter if I had any aptitude for music and I dabbled casually with photography. But words were my go-to for a means of expressing creatively.

Then I began to pay closer attention to my interests when I started to explore a long-term career and my thoughts on being a writer waned. Another word started popping up. Editor.
Along with a lists of similar careers related to being in a creative field, but not actually being the creator/creative. Producer, manager, strategist. I perhaps started to identify my strengths and realized I may not have the vulnerability and the tenacity to be a creative - but to be the one that helps to shape it, or bring it to life.

I think a lot about what defines a strategist and a creative. They are different sides of the coin - similar but not the same. The one underlying theme I've defined so far are that strategists do not create, the end product at least. They are not the artists, the singers, the builders, the programmers, the screenwriters. They are the philosophers, the directors, the architects, the engineers. Some are very straightforward, and others I still have yet to define.Are actors the creative or are they meant to just portray the story?

 Perhaps some roles embody both - they define and create altogether. But for the most part, it would make sense to have these roles be separate as it is almost always preferable to have someone else edit your work. You always end up being too biased to your own work. 

Perhaps there are more principles then. Strategists do not own the final product is one. Second is they have to be impartial and not feel ownership over the work, otherwise they will not be fully critical of it. When I think about philosophers in this aspect, they also do not have any control over the output - a school of thought can be evolved into anything really - it's just a concept. You can turn into a syllabus, use it to create a product,  use it as inspiration for a creative project. Philosophers have no control over what ends up with their principles.

Can the same be said for the other roles I've grouped together with strategists? As an architect however, while you come up with the blueprint, this indicates you have full control of the output and yet are incapable of actually building it. What does this mean?  Is there a third group I haven't thought of? There is someone that concepts the idea and someone that produces or articulates it. Sometimes the creative is the conceptual and the strategists figures out how to articulate it. Sometimes it's the other way around. Perhaps that's the key. To ideate and to create can be owned by both strategist and creative and they are interchangeable but one typically owns one of the steps.