the market economy of the art world

Reading through Kirsi Peltomaki's chapter 1 "Situation Aesthetics: the work of Michael Asher" I was struck by the artists need to posit himself as making truly 'edgy art'. Asher critiqued Irwin's work in stating that the 'work became more important than the spectator'. Perhaps this is what Asher is also doing in positing his work at truly revolutionary.

Whilst I really appreciate the work of Asher and the ideas it bring to the 'art world', extremely relevant practice, I resent reading things such as "experience is everything", inferring this is 'real art'. I think gallery wall art has as much place and significance in art communities as the experiential installation based work of Asher. A work which apparently does not push ideology on the viewer. Perhaps the ideology Asher is pushing is somewhat more egotistical - this is the one true art. I don't want to subscribe to an art world which see a particular type of art as more important than another. In doing this are we only buying into a market economy based on competition?