We're not talking about mind-set shattering changes here just alterations to the usual ideas or practices. A subtle shift in concept here, a crossing the line between art forms there, or a collaboration piece that demands a different approach on the part of the viewer. In these instances originality will compensate for a drop in skill levels, providing the work offers a satisfying viewing experience. I may not like the work but do appreciate an attempt at originality and will say so. All artists' experiment but not all experiments are good works of art.
Originality evolves slowly before erupting on the scene as an 'overnight success'.
When professional artists exhibit their experiments they are looking for honest feedback. The job of the reviewer is to do just that, to point out where the experiment works and where it doesn't, it's called constructive criticism. When emerging artists put out experimental work, they're looking for praise rather than feedback, they're not being honest with their art, themselves or the public. Artists shouldn't show their work until they, and their works, are mature enough to deal with honesty. No matter what the latest 'theory' says, skills will always be important to visual art.