Custodians of Culture?

I recently watched the talk given by David Hickey for the Frieze Foundation entitled "Custodians of Culture - Schoolyard Art: Playing Fair Without the Referee".

Photo and references sourced from: Frieze Foundation on-inline 

http://www.friezefoundation.org/talks/detail/custodians_of_culture_dave_hickey/

I was drawn to comments Mr Hickey made about where value is established in art. He claims that up until the 1970s value was presumed through this course: The artist made the artwork and approached the gallery, the gallery then sold the work onto the community. In Mr Hickey's opinion if purchase reached critical mass, in other words it sold well, then it was presumed that the work tapped into or was recognised as having some aspect of public virtue. When, by community consensus, the work assumed this importance it was then that the work would find its way into the public institution. In Mr Hickey's words "Objects of delectation became icons of public significance".

As well as this view of a kind of bottom-up appraisal of art, Mr Hickey points out the role of critical appraisal in determining value. According to Mr Hickey a further investment was made by those whose job it is to "brokerage" art; the art dealer, the critic, the reviewers, the magazines and journals. According to Mr Hickey these people and institutions staked their reputation on being right about the artist, marking a kind of price point. A price point based on reputation; by those (in the business of art) who are willing to back the artist and willing to risk being wrong.

The point Mr Hickey is making is that the bottom-up process relied on the collective taste of the community, not the professional opinion of museum staff. He believes this is no longer the case and that the bond between the community and the museum has been severed in today's art climate through economies of ephemerality. Mr Hickey cites 'non-commercial' art as the cause. By 'non-commercial' Mr Hickey means 'non-object based' art. Although he specifically names installation art I think his definition is meant to include other forms of non-object based art.

Here firstly, are two examples of how value was determined in the art world, demand for the object and the investment of reputation. These two qualifiers suggesting the artwork has public virtue and is therefore of public significance. Secondly in Mr Hickey's opinion this process has been by-passed by current museum practice for reasons of cost-efficiency. 

NB: All references attributed to Mr Hickey can be found on http://www.friezefoundation.org/talks/detail/custodians_of_culture_dave_hickey/

If as Mr Hickey suggests these rules of value no longer apply and this is due to the introduction of immateriality into the art world. In what way does 'non-object based' artforms such as performance art affect the understanding of Value in relation to Art?