institutional stultification

i looked at Aberto and Stimson's Institutional Critique: An Anthology of Artists’ Writings(Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2009)and it called to mind a quotation by Paul Valery that i found in Adam Geczy's book art, histories theories and exceptions
it reads thus:

"There is much that is admirable about them, but nothing delightful. Ideas of public order, conservation and public utility, exact and clear as they may be, have little to do with delight. [...] Upon my first step towards the things of beauty, a hand takes my cane, a notice tells me not to smoke.
Already numbed by authority and feeling constricted, i make my way into a room full of scuplture where nothing reigns but cold confusion. [...] I am within a tumult of frozen creatures, each of which recquires but is not affored, inexistence of the other"

I was completely dumbfounded by this quotation, can you believe it was written in 1923? i think i have this experience every single time i ascend the steps to the sandstone sepulchure of the AGNSW. I think its interesting to look at the agents of control and power within the gallery institution as Alberro does, because i think it can be easy to forget the idea of having to ask yourself, "who has bought and collected these works, for what purpose, and who, or what kind of person's eyes are they inted to be seen by?"
I often have a heightened awareness of these issues around Archibald time, or for that matter, any large time there is a prize involved. You have to wonder why that particular artwork was chosen, and it comes down to this strange breakdown of all these different factors that you can take into account.
It's funny, but this reminds me of a statistic i read about the salaries that Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu received for acting in the Charlies Angels sequel. Diaz got something like 23 million, Barrymore got 15 and Liu got a measly 6 or thereabouts. Knowing those figures and then watching the film you have to wonder what elements or traits these actors have and which of them get the bucks.
anyway, that was just an aside.
Despite the idea of galleries being hypocritical in the sense that they liquidate or stultify the very thing that it tries to enshrine or promote, i think that they are still great institutions that i am glad to have within the fabric of the city. They provide a context through which engage with the works and have art experiences of a level that we wouldnt otherwise.
i guess maybe instead of just carpet bomb attacks on the art-institution we should sort of campaign for an increased kind of transparancy of the power structures and individuals within and behind them, and perhaps to try and open them up and in a sense to democratise them?
(if thats a verb)