This seems a very narrow if not conformist view of art.
Artists doing graffiti, participating in hobby groups, state funded projects, discovered by later generations, etc - they don’t care about making viewers feel good about funding; and yet their art can very much make the world a better place.
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.
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...