I think I have been to too many exhibitions showing work claiming to question the gallery context or to question the meaning of art - but shown in an art gallery to an audience committed to art. I am enjoying Rich Gold's book 'Plenitude' where he tries to make sense of the all the 'stuff' in the world, the damage it does, and his own deep enjoyment of producing more stuff in his work. A great book. Here is his take on this position that too many artists have:
"The basic economics of fine the fine art beret [his term for fine artist versus commercial artist]goes like this: Those who make their living (if they make a living) by producing a small number of objects that they sell for large amounts of money, usually to the corporations, governments or the wealthy...That is, fine artists are supported by the most powerful, elitist, influential forces in our culture. Oddly, of course, the beret wearer often sees themselves as outsiders, or even antithetical to the power elite.
They believe that art's close ties to the ruling classes are just a ruse, a trick pulled on the patron to get money. This is not my belief. I believe that Western art is almost a perfect reflection of the society that produces it. From the love of the new, to the cult of the individual, from the commodification of the aesthetic surface, to the obdurate laws of intellectual ownership, from the concepts of continual revolution and change, to the belief in modernity and postmodernity - art and society are strange and perfect twins."