The people who have pioneered any art form have done so by taking existing concepts and filtering them through idiosyncratic tendencies. The average consumer does not know how to see this. Things are recognized based on how well they can mimic existing styles, and only then are they appreciated. It causes music to stagnate and become so self-aware and vocal-centric that it's uncomfortable for me to listen to. Writing becomes an adolescent lurch for punchy words. Instead of relying on the novelty of a concept, it relies on the novelty of mimicry.
I don't believe that good art can only come from a new invention, but even what I recognize as 'good', when it does only a sort of mimicry, lends its own style to that structure. It mixes an improvisational spirit with rote and measure.
The fluidity that comes with being comfortable in your own creation is something that can't be faked, unless those discerning it aren't intelligent enough to see past it. And, that's what divides how people think of art. There are the people that deconstruct only in terms of existing structures, and those whom deconstruct with an open mind toward the creator, to pick him or her apart as well.
A lot of people develop careers as critics based on how well they can define existing structures. And, in my mind, it only helps the stagnation of art, and its subsequent consumerification; to turn it into a product.