While personally I believe in some of those views, I don't want to attach lots of significance to such advocacies. Just because someone buys 5 ton stone for $M does not mean that everyone endorses that buyer's views.
It is important we protect creative freedom of artists. The viewers I believe are more informed than what is assumed here. We don't want to be told what to like and what not to. We need knowledge,confidence and courage in arriving at what we think is art, sincerely going by what our heart feels, not what someone likes us to like or think. Be it the so called 'cubism' by Picasso or 'paint throwing' by Jackson Pollock. I may like or dislike Jackson Pollock's work, it is upto my heart to decide. I don't want to be told to like/dislike Pollock's work. I personally don't want to be influenced by others views on it. For others too, why should it matter what I like?! Sincerity of the artist and viewers needs equal emphasis in such discussions. Tolstoy in
his book What is Art? emphasised 3 pillars of the art - sincerity of the artist, novelty of the work and conveying emotions/feelings. The last one did not go well with next generation artists. Probably creative freedom took precedence over the last restriction. Personally I believe emotions/feelings are integral to a work of art, though others might disagree in this
point-of-view world, which is fine. That said, sincerity of the artist can't be compromised at all.
Bottom line, creative freedom of artists needs protection. True artist create a work of art for herself, not for others. It is a basic need and an element of fundamental self expression. For the viewers, some art called good art will stay in their mind, and some, the bad ones will be forgotten. Some of those bad ones may show up in galleries, may be bought for $M but galleries don't decide what art is, we do!
Just my 2c..