I can’t really complain that the galleries cater to the wealthy—why should they not? That’s always been how they survived.
this is what i was talking about earlier, you can't blame artists for making art centered around those that will purchase their products. also, he has a good point that, that is how art has survived.
art can be illuminating and edifying
byrne is noting the one good aspect to window shopping in this paragraph. while he doesn't agree with the idea that "art can be illuminating and edifying" he still includes this as a way to add to his claims that the galleries are good for public consumption.
anyone else who once upon a time might have felt this work was within reach is quickly vanishing from the economic spectrum
this reminds me of how in a earlier section, we were asked why a poster of an image is cheaper than an actual painting. a lot of these artists make art for rich people. however, can they be blamed for that though? considering how a lot of people don't have supplemental income to support artists, creatives have to find a way to make money somehow. some food for thought.