This essay needs some focus. The author is a prolific writer and a founder of a centrist DC think tank, but he's over-extending himself here. In one paragraph

This essay needs some focus. The author is a prolific writer and a founder of a centrist DC think tank, but he's over-extending himself here. In one paragraph he is critiquing formally-innovative avant-garde artists who stay within conventional artistic work practices (the "Tripod" series by his former professor), and in the next he is giving the same treatment to the makers of corporate lobby art. These are really different constituents of contemporary art. They are targeted at two different audiences: lobby pass-thrus, vs. art-world critics and gallery-goers. Pushing them together suggests that the author does not have much contact with contemporary artists or the art world now. To be more specific, there are contemporary artists (say, Chris Burden, https://www.artsy.net/article/editorial-chris-burdens-big-wheel-beautiful-and-simultaneously https://www.artsy.net/article/editorial-chris-burdens-big-wh...) who have deliberately moved outside sculptural conventions, but it's nothing to do with corporatism, or being blandly acceptable to everyone. (It might have to do with Romanticism, but make the case!) Yet, many of Burden's works are revered in the art community. And obviously there are lots of contemporary artists who make work so provocative it can't easily be shown, certainly not in most hotel lobbies. (A blue-chip example would be Paul McCarthy, http://www.hauserwirth.com/artists/20/paul-mccarthy/images-clips/10/ http://www.hauserwirth.com/artists/20/paul-mccarthy/images-c... -- worth the click.) Finally, even more challenging for the article, is someone like Jeff Koons, who manages to combine crowd-pleasing qualities with genuinely innovative objects. Koons, his clients, his work practices, and the critics who like (some of) his work pose an interesting challenge for the piece.