art world politics?

So I've been reading up on the art world and visiting professional art blogs. and I have realized a few things. I find so much out there about people discussing what is "art" and what is "not". I find both sides to be ludicrous. One person says that you have to be represented by a "legitimate" gallery-however those galleries only represent you if they can sell your work and pretty much make a profit from it- so its all about the money, and the illusion is that this prestige means that the art is "good" , who's to judge? Then we have the folks (along the same lines) that bash what they call "vanity galleries" these are galleries that make you pay to exhibit your work in them. The "prestigious" galleries "look down" on them- apparently. ( I suppose artists are supposed to take that as a horrific thing?, lol.) Then you have another sect that spins extremely philosophical discourses on how there is no real art anymore, and even takes this so far as to make their own snobby judgments (usually based on age or on method) of what "good" and "bad" art is. Sometimes these are just stereotyping art school graduates from movies, or declaring that art has no meaning anymore, accusing all artist of being vain, "you haven't suffered enough or cut of an ear, etc. etc."

I find them all to be missing the point in the same exact way. Art is art and all art is priceless, therefore monetary value (or philosophical value) is bestowed or debunked by the viewer. SO the prestigious galleries that are supposed to make one "legitimate" are only "legitimate" if you are one of that circle and/or believe that philosophy- or if you are going the route of selling expensively only to the "upper crust" "art collector".
As far as those who bash vanity galleries, I suppose if you are trying to climb into the elitist circle, then you might have a problem- because those who side with the elitists may look down on you. However, I would like to think that artists would rather work with people open minded enough to at least look at their art before rejecting them . My advice: If you want to have a vanity, and you can afford to -do it and just don't tell the elites, if they are that snobby they wont show up anyways and who's to know? In the meantime everyone else will probably love getting to mingle and enjoy your work.
To the last example, the Philosophical one- just as subjective and biased as the "elitist", they are gonna miss out on enjoying the art and the artists. p.s. - I like my ears :D

finally I appreciated the thoughts expressed by Joyce Fournier in her response (titled "Everyone pays a fee") to an art gallery thread , talking about how the current system often shames artists out of being independent (and out of exhibiting in venues other that elite, selective galleries), I also appreciated Joy Enelman's response to the thread as well
"... many artists do not necessarily want to sell, but wish to communicate their ideas visually to an audience and listen to the comments about the work. Not all artists 'have to sell' and the idea of making art (only) for the sake of 'selling' is in itself a travesty.

Art is first about communication and to communicate, the artist needs a venue. Who pays? Does it matter whether it is the artist, the gallery, the government? Isn't it more important that the artist gets a chance to show, discuss, talk about and share his/her vision?

What is this modern mentality of 'money first, second and third'?

Where is the art for art's sake?"