Imagine if someone took programs written for the Obfuscated C contest and boxed them up for sale to the general public. Art that is "movement Z is a reaction to Y, which in turn is a reaction to X" might be fine for artists to circulate amongst themselves, but the problem is that it is sold to people who have no such insider knowledge, yet like to pretend it is somehow relevant to them.
I'm not sure this is true. It seems to me that people who don't have insider knowledge end up with stuff they like -- they aren't lining up to pay $350k for something they don't like or understand. Ironically, they're probably ending up happier than some collectors trying to speculate who end up with the B.S.
On the other hand, collectors who are rich, dedicated, and informed are a huge component of the total money spent on modern art, and are big players (iconic example: the Guggenheims). They can end up having a tremendous influence on the art world.
Bottom line: don't feel sorry for art collectors. And if you collect art, buy what you like! Not what people tell you you ought to like!
Another good example: Peter Norton, of Norton Utilities, has been a very influential collector. He's probably one of the hundred or so most prominent private collectors of contemporary art.
If you're saying that people sometimes buy stuff for reasons other than truly appreciating it, sure, I'm not going to disagree. But that's not just true about art; it's an endemic problem with humans buying things.
Indeed, I worry less about it with art than most other things. Most art I've seen is produced by people who are sincere about it. Their art may be bad, or at least not my thing, but they're not going to spend a month making something without meaning to them.
I think most of the real scams in the art world are at the very high end. E.g., I think Damien Hirst is a marketing genius and a weak artist. Chihuly too. But if you're going to drop $10k-$10m on a piece of art, I'm just going to have to trust that you know what you're doing.
