Are all Math proofs just the application of Definition? I'm going to try and keep this concise. I am a second year undergraduate studying Mathematics & CS, although I am taking some third and fourth year math courses (Abstract algebra & advanced number theory). I used to really enjoy mathematical proofs but I am starting to feel as though they have patterns and are repetitive. It seems that all proofs, at undergraduate level, involve taking a few definitions from the hypothesis, and manipulating them and applying a few logical steps to reach the conclusion. I can't count how many times I read a question, wrote down the hypothesis and the definitions associated with it, and instantly figured out how to reach the conclusion. At this point, only a few proof questions interest me since they involve some novel ideas but the rest seem so repetitive.
So my question is, will this ever change? When is the point when we move from proving everything from the basic definitions onto more advanced and novel proofs?
Note: This question doesn't apply to non proof problems. I am only talking about proof questions.

Surely, Math wouldn't be nearly as interesting and challenging to the millions of folks who do it if all it took was applying definitions. 
It depends on the particular topic how quickly you'll escape these "massage the definition" questions, but definitely by the end of your undergraduate career you should see far fewer of these questions. 
That is not to say these kinds of questions are unimportant. They are included in most textbooks to ensure you truly grasp the concepts being defined, which can get quite difficult as things become more abstract and complex.
