That may seem a bit confusing to read, but when you look at the typical tech-rich set, there is no inherent need to fit in with the crowd, simply for the sake of fitting-in. "The art scene" for the most part is exactly just that. Speaking as someone quite interested in art history, I can attest to the fact that the "high art" world is very much a relic from old times - when children were raised to watch their status and life was a giant popularity contest. Now that's not to say that the tech-set are impervious to elitist behavior, but tech elitism is based more heavily on talent, intelligence, and creativity. So in a way, it's a kind of elitism that is forced on the culture itself, in a pursuit for the most "innovative" way to do something. Where the art crowd admires "witty" quasi-intellectual banter, the tech-set are more likely to be interested in something, more demonstrably cool or unique to their interests. This obviously poses a dilemma for art dealers from that standpoint - how do you interest someone in something they have no interest in. It is a dilemma that art dealers face, not just with "nerds" but with anyone, really. But convincing the average Joe to be interested in your activity because "it's what the cool kids do" is a lot easier than convincing someone who may not necessarily care much for sitting at the cool kids' table.
So in a sense, the tech crowd doesn't buy into high art because it's a group that generally doesn't have any particular need to fit-in for fitting in sake, but in a larger sense, the elitism in the high art world is reliant more on popularity and everyone reading the same books and speaking the same language, which is complete anathema to a group whose principles are based more on "cool shit" than club membership.
But then again, these are just my generalizations :)