“We want from art…some experience free of ulterior motives.” writes Tom McCormick in his closing paragraph of Market Forces for The Museum of Moving Image website. In as much as anyone can define what makes good art, certainly McCormick’s labeled a good part of it. The author drew the sentiment at least in part from what he identified as “the sadest of [Bravo’s Work of Art] many sad moments” — the Children’s Museum episode. “The challenge zeroes in on at least two of the things that a lot of people want from art: revelation and vulnerability.” McCormick observes, “But don't these things only mean something if we somehow feel they're freely offered?”
I told Time Magazine, “the episode was just an excuse to to pry conflict and personal narrative out of the contestants”, but the quote above gets a little closer to the core of the issue. As for the what the article’s title has to do with art’s labeling and reception — a teaser:
Discussions about art and society tend to break down along a few fault lines that relate to the status of art and the status of the market. We could break the debate down into four positions, or ideal types: a) pro-market, pro-art, b) anti-market, pro-art, c) anti-market, anti-art, and d) pro-market, anti-art. Pro-market, pro-art people hold that art is a part of the market, and that this is good because the market, while it may have its problems, is sort of electively democratic and produces quality. People who subscribe to this view are usually intellectuals who made their way outside of the academy—Clive James and Dave Hickey come to mind—and they usually have a bone to pick with avant-gardism, and think that art would do better to pay more attention to audiences; in other words, that art often fails because it's not involved enough with the market.
I recommend reading the piece in its entirety here.