So I am a bit confused. Which one actually drives creativity?
Because those two seem to work in opposite directions, so I am not sure how they fit together.
It is pretty basic. Both. You need an empty space in order to fill it with inspiring things. Sit a kid in front of a TV and they will be surrounded by content, but not create. Get them bored and it forces them to explore and find things that actually interest them.
Would their creativity still come only from boredom, or do they also need outside inspiration somehow?
It is a strange question, because boredom is just a feeling state. Happiness doesn't make someone creative. Nor does sadness. What makes people create is when they make a choice to be active, rather than passive.
But you cannot go outside and be surrounded by finance the way you can with hobbies or physical activities.
Of course you can. You can spend time reading quality content about finance, or engaging with people who are interested in it and having discussions. You can try things and understand things and be active.
And I also wondered how this applies to people who live in cities but do not have money to access cultural experiences. If someone cannot afford museums, cafés, events, or materials, then going outside does not necessarily give them inspiration either. What would inspire them in that situation?
What are you talking about? You don't need to be on holiday, or climb Everest or take a walk through a forest to be inspired. You can sit at home, look at a fly on the wall and be inspired to create something. People set up far too many hurdles and conditions in order to activate, meaning that they will never activate, never create, never know enough, or have enough to do anything. It is sad.
You don't need to live an amazing life to be creative, you just have to actively use your mind. Most people don't because they spend all of their time filling their experience with crap from social media, pretending that it inspires them. If inspiration doesn't generate activity, it is not inspiration.