Using Vincent van Gogh as an example, the author declares that the artist’s “creativity came into being when a sufficient number of art experts felt that his paintings had something important to contribute to the domain of art.” Innovation, that is, exists only when the correctly credentialed hivemind agrees that it does. And “without such a response,” the author continues, “van Gogh would have remained what he was, a disturbed man who painted strange canvases.” What determines “creativity,” in other words, is the very faction it’s supposedly rebelling against: established expertise.

Your comment made me think of this quote from TED talks are lying to you posted yesterday. The quote talks about "creativity" but I think in this context it could be replaced by "value" since creativity is what we value in contemporary art (and to a lesser degree now - skill but that's a whole other debate). The "consumer" of the art decides of its value. Basic economic principles of supply and demand apply to art, except that for art we could talk about first degree price discrimination, which makes it a bit more adapted to each individual's tastes and expectations.