I agree overall that this article seems a bit incoherent. I also actually agree that, other than in times of the rich patrons, there's actually more ways to ge

I agree overall that this article seems a bit incoherent. I also actually agree that, other than in times of the rich patrons, there's actually more ways to get funded as an artist now than 10 years ago. I'm not sure that marketability has ever been a good metric for deciding whether art is useful or not though. Useful art shows something about 'us' to the rest of 'us', and that may not be marketable at all. In that case, what would really help is a basic income. If you are passionate about art, you can pursue meaningful art that might show us some things about the human condition without needing to worry about whether it is marketable. If it becomes marketable so be it, there's your step up. If not, you are free to at least survive while trying to do whatever you are doing. -- I'd argue that the way art is funded is highly tilted towards what grantmakers think is "good art", which often isn't, but is the idea that the people that give them money to fund art has....