Reflections on Tuesdays Lecture

I thought Prof. Machado brought up an interesting point in class on Tuesday, that I was wondering what anyone else might have had an opinion on.
When we were talking about Pollock he said that the reason it (Pollock's drip paintings) was art was because Pollock had the idea first, and the gall to carry it out. It wasn't that anyone could or couldn't copy it, but that they didn't carry it out in the first place. Interesting, although then my question is, does that mean that the only way in which to be different is to make increasingly abstract and basic pieces of art? This currently seems to be the trend. If the only way to be successful is to be the first to do something "different" then it seems we walk a fine line in the art world. I mean to its logical extreme this could be very dangerous territory. Also, even though some artist were the first to create their type of art, is there really any higher value for anyone in a piece if they could just as easily make it themselves or have a friend make it for them? Is it possible to be subjective to the point of being destructive?