> All innovators are unconventional. The real problem is that it's hard to distinguish "best" practices from conventional practices. Innovators are necessaril

> All innovators are unconventional. The real problem is that it's hard to distinguish "best" practices from conventional practices. Innovators are necessarily unconventional, but the ones we care about are also necessarily demonstrably good (in some sense). So there is this claim from the innovator side that "unconventional" is not a valid argument. This claim only makes sense in the presence of an "unconventional" judgment -- i.e. that this creative work is necessarily deficient simply because it is unconventional. Now, of course, no critic would put it so bluntly. But I think it illustrates the underlying dynamic.