Edna,
Was very interesting to read your description, thanks. Of course the element of time is different in performance, but not the fact of entering into a place of creation and of sensitivity to the fine structure of things, as they actually are rather than as one (or one's aesthetic sensibility) might prefer or imagine them to be.
I think at some point in scientific research one understands that there is a subtle, but enormous, difference between the legions of very talented people who find, in their research, structures and patterns whose symmetries were suggested to them by their own minds or by their (perhaps very finely tuned!) sense of how things should be, and the few people who are able to encounter (say) mathematics on its own terms, to reveal no more or less than the inherent structure of the thing itself, however alien it may at first seem.
Grothendieck said this much more beautifully, "ce qui fait la qualité du chercheur, c’est la qualité de son attention à l’écoute de la voix des choses" --
(and many more such things: I point those interested to Recoltes & Semailles, http://people.math.jussieu.fr/~leila/grothendieckcircle/RetS.pdf)