... I consider still life a creative form of photographic art...
The essence of photographic creativity, in my sense/understanding of the term, is that the photographer has put together something that did not and would not have existed without his active interference in the status quo. That's why I can't accept the simple act of picking a pleasing viewpoint or moment in time as being the defining qualities of creativity; it takes more than that: the photographer has to have made the difference.
So, you are basically saying that rearranging a few apples and pears, or peppers, or whatever, on a tabletop is creative, wheres the whole HCB opus (of capturing a decisive moment in time) is not? Or that Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl, another example of just picking a "pleasing viewpoint or moment in time," is not?
If that is indeed creativity, then I do not really care much about it anymore.
I think that the essence of our different views on art/creativity is that you see Art = Object. It starts with objects (peppers or models), rearranged by the photographer, and ends as an object in itself. The viewer then can admire that (newly created) object, and the original objects in it... or not.
If, however, we assume that Art = Communication (as Oscar already mentioned), then the origin of that communication (the initial object) becomes much less important, and even less important whether that object was rearranged or "merely" selected.
In such a case, simply selecting a can of soup becomes art. Or even elephant turd. In both cases it initiates a communication with the viewer. And that is the bases of much of modern art, as much as I acknowledge that many people wouldn't consider it so.
In such a case, simply selecting a "pleasing viewpoint or moment of time" in landscape photography is not an end in and by itself (an object), but a beginning of a communication with the viewer, conveying a certain emotion or state of mind. Hence Art.