Geoffrey of Monmouth has his finger on the pulse...of his patrons?

In "The Conquest of the Past in The History of the Kings of Britain," Michael Faltera critiques Michelle Warren for under underemphasizing "the extent to which patronage shapes ideology" (127). Put perhaps more crudely, his point is that there's a straight line between money and content (something we're all well aware of). This seems to further problematize the idea of truly original content - even people who eschew financial support for their artistic endeavors are doing so in the framework of commodifying artistic expression in general. Is it possible that we occasionally mistake creativity (or originality) for cleverness (being nimble in a specific framework, but still limited in expression)? Or are they the same thing?