... I believe art is an investment for many. And I think that is the root of the 'problem'. A gallery owner has to pay rent, and people (art investors) feel better spending money on something that will yield a pay back some day.
Well, I won't say I'm not aware of the value of my art collection. It's modest, but I do have one or two fairly valuable pieces, often acquired almost by accident, more than smarts. I have one piece that may well make a real difference in my retirement prospects. There's nothing really wrong with that attention to value, but when it becomes dominant, there is a problem. A lot of real art investors are quite well aware of the quality of what they buy, and aren't necessarily swayed by public taste. The smart ones know that public tastes are very fickle. Of course, then there are the folks who bet their shirts on Thomas Kincade. Are they going to be surprised!
Unfortunately, galleries must keep an eye to the market in order to stay in business. Many go bust. From their point of view, taking on an untried new artist is risky; safer to go with names and trends. Sometimes their fear is really well founded.
I'm more inclined to believe that the "root of the problem" is less the $$ factors, and more just plain ignorance on the part of the public. Galleries survive on their ability to cater to what people want. When people are lead by ignorance, they have no concept of what it's all about. An example from the CBC following its ruination of Radio 2 (I know, I know, some people actually LIKE it, but not me): One of the new announcers, defending the broadcaster's gutting of the content complained that he just couldn't figure out why the classical music lovers were complaining so much. He said it made no sense, because they still played a lot of music that was "relaxing". Hoo Boy! Out to lunch!
The really good galleries see themselves as educators; they lead people from one level to the next, taking them at the taste level where they come into the market, and helping them learn to see.