Who's doing the creating here?

The Suprematists pose an interesting question. Can something be created out of nothing? The tangible expression of this philosophical idea is expressed in Malevich’s painting of a colored square on a white background. It is as if the color did not derive from anything already made because it protrudes out of nothingness. It is in his mind is a new color, giving life to a new form. The Suprematists hold fast to this concept and run their entire lives around achieving it because it is more than an art to them; it is a worldview and a philosophy, a manifesto about the perfection of the modern age, a vision for the highest potential of humanity. They slander the artistic works of all previous generations with utmost contempt, and they proclaim the new art as far superior- as if there were a breech between the two worlds equal in the magnitude to that between a peasant and a feudal lord. It appears they are even arrogant about their arrogance. Their attitude in expressing the philosophy says something about the philosophy itself. It is an egotistical humanism that aims to crown humanity his own god, as well as god over all other forms of nature and art. Something can indeed be created out of nothing. That should be obvious as we observe the universe around us through science and ponder how it came into existence, how it began; for we know it had to have a beginning because it is aging over time. Thus, that should not even be a question. The question should be about the subject matter, rather than the verb. Who can create something out of nothing? And after this is answered, the question is, can one who is himself created, then in turn create something out of nothing? I think the answer is no. We as humans are limited in our creation to what has already been created. How can we claim to create a new color? The materials we use for that color, for that white background, are already before us, discovered to exist by us, and yes put into use creatively, but still we did not derive them out of nothing. And the new forms that we create are not the hierarchy. Their purpose is to serve the existing forms. Their purpose is to serve humanity, which the suprematists do recognize, and we must remember that humanity is creation. Architectural and artistic forms are given as gifts to our creative minds for the purpose of adding more beauty to that which is already beautiful. Lissitzky calls the new artist of his age the “omniscient, omnipotent, omnific constructor of the new world.” If he is omniscient, why did he not know that the age of suprematism, though leaving its mark, would come to its end along with the other movements of the time? If he is omnipotent, why did he not bring mankind to a point of supreme perfect rule? And if he is omnific, why did he not pop new materials and colors and objects out of thin air? The suprematist art is creative, but not omnific. It is new, but not free from evolution. It is progressive for architecture, but not the stimulus for perfection by any means. The exalted words of the Suprematists are brought low by the following era. Let us not make the same mistake in our claims.