Galleries are businesses that have understandable economic considerations to take into account in order for them to exist. Not to mention they are by their very nature, one step behind the actual development of art, which occurs not in the gallery but in the artist's studio. As such, they are not reliable indicators of the true evolution of art. They are secondhand witnesses steered not by what matters as much as what will sell. Not dissing them, just stating fact.
Art critics are a bunch of agenda-regurgitating intellectuals who place an exorbitant amount of credence and importance on their silly little ideas about what art is or does or says. They are two steps behind, since they neither make the art nor show it. I'm totally dissing them because I think they're a bunch of sissypants brainiacs who'd rather talk about something than actually do something themselves. The unfortunate fact for me, however, is that I can usually only access those artists by reading the catalogs written by these same sissies.
I don't think I'm too much for playing those kinds of games. I'll just make art, thanks. My nature prevents me from even half-heartedly participating in anything I know to be bullshit.
What I'm trying hard to say here is that when art is really made it is not made for galleries or shows or critics or money. It's made for the artist by the artist. It's a conversation that occurs visually, across history, because a person feels the need to talk visually. I just can't put up with all the politicized, eco-conscious, gender-examining, deconstructionist, concept-centric gobbledy gook. It just makes my heart tired.