It is perhaps a narrow view, but not an incorrect one.
You mention state funded projects, but the funding has to come from somewhere else. What the author is saying is this: it takes money to run a gallery (or a museum, for that matter), therefore even if it is not the primary objective, we should strive to keep the money flowing so that we can make have better galleries/museums.
Galleries are necessarily behind the curve because they're businesses and have to stay afloat. You typically don't go to a gallery to see something new, but to see the works of an already established artist.
Meanwhile interesting, innovative art happens outside of galleries, but you have to look for it, as there's an oversupply of aspiring artists.
Bottom line is you can't base the whole art scene on the opinions of art galleries, as they play it safe and art is strictly about the opposite.
Actually the money doesn’t have to come from anywhere, that’s my point. If we cut all state funding - I’m sure artists would continue making art, as they did for millenia. We encourage art with state funding because we consider it beneficial to the society[1].
The “keep the money flowing” approach distracts from making art and leads to making art that sells well. Do we really want that to dominate galleries/museums?
[1]: “American taxpayers concur, with 55% supporting increasing federal investment in the arts, 57% supporting state government funding for the arts and 58% supporting local government funding for the arts” https://www.delawareartsalliance.org/government-funding-arts...
You mention state funded projects, but the funding has to come from somewhere else. What the author is saying is this: it takes money to run a gallery (or a museum, for that matter), therefore even if it is not the primary objective, we should strive to keep the money flowing so that we can make have better galleries/museums.