Seems to me there is a conceptual mistake here, putting a piece of creative work to be evaluated by judges, not an innocent audience puts the emphasis on the act of evaluation rather than the act of enjoyment.

If you consider now that those people, whoever they may be, have a non stable relationship with themselves, the environment and huge amount of factors are into play, then you realise your research is biased big time to a negative or even potentially very negative outcome.

Now, if creativity by committee was the way forward, why is that every single piece of art worth being called piece or art has been done by one person? why do they think a watered down, safe and grey version of a challenging idea is better? and if so, what is the definition of better?

We live in the world of average.