As a writer, your topic should dictate the creative skills required. If you have an original or interesting idea or story, you should let it speak for itself rather than over-embellishing it with bells and whistles. On the other hand, if your topic is something very familiar to your audience, you will have to rely more heavily on your creative skills to keep the audience enthralled.
Consider the example of a piece on evolution versus a piece about a guy who just lost his wife. Evolution is a very heated topic, so writing a simple, coherent dialogue about the two major viewpoints will already draw some audience members. But to get people to read about the guy who lost his wife, you’ll have to flesh his character, the circumstances, his feelings, etc.
There seems to be a widely held belief that the amount of creative skill used in a work is a good indication of the writer’s “quality.” Thus literary fiction writers are held in higher esteem on average than writers of other genres such as sci-fi and nonfiction. This is nonsense. To clearly and concisely explain a complex theory or story in an compelling manner is a skill on par with any creative skill.
Writers are not merely entertainers; they are artists. A good writer uses whatever skills are necessary to effectively reach his or her audience: to evoke a certain emotion or to communicate a certain message. No more, no less. Writers get into trouble when they start over-embellishing in order to win acclaim from their peers and critics. Sadly, I hear too many writers these days accused of stretching the truth in memoirs and news pieces. If these allegations are truth, they have lost their integrity as artists and have become con men out to make a quick buck.