its one of those aggressively obtuse things that is always shifting precisely to keep poor idiots like myself from being able to participate
I don't think it shifts, but it is aggressively obtuse on purpose. There are certain rules you have to follow to show that you belong. I don't have full knowledge of what it takes yet, but I've been working on it for about 20 years.
You have to know the right people. Generally, you can't just make an appointment with a gallery owner or a curator and have them look at your work. They have to find you. It's like the stories about people giving Dr Dre mixtapes at parties - it's a faux pas at the very least. For example, you might know artists that show at the place you want to show and they could mention your work to the gallery owner. That's one way - once you are in at one gallery or at a major art show, other curators, etc. will see your work - but you have to keep the ball rolling or it will stop. Inertia sets in within one year of not showing and you're back to square one almost.
You have to be able to bullshit about concepts as if they really matter. In the end, however, at least in my experience of reading hundreds of statements, concepts don't matter that much, but the writing about them has to conform to a specific style in order to be accepted. If you can't do it yourself, you need to find someone who can - in fact it's better if someone else (an art historian or curator) writes about your work using your notes as a reference.
Once you're work is being sold at a gallery or to certain representative people, then other people take notice. Not because you have talent per se, but because they see it as an investment and the piece matches their couch or would look good on an end table.
The guy in the article is taking advantage of the rules of this game without the participants realizing it. I'm sure there has already been some backlash though. The people in the "Art World" don't want the game to be exposed for what it is. They are a Serious Group doing Serious Things - they want to believe that they are buying art for the sake of it and that the artists that are successful really are the most talented. But it's not really true in the post-post-modern, same as it wasn't in the post-modern. There's nothing to really hold on to - it's all wax without the wick, the emporer's new clothes - bullshitting the bullshitter who's bullshitting himself.
In any case, what is upsetting you seems to be more complex than not being impressed with "shock value" in an era where in a few minutes I will be watching a gif of someone die violently followed by a post of someone mad about what someone else thinks about a videogame, etc.
I can care deeply about the refugee crisis in Europe, the wars in the Middle East, racism in America, etc. and at the same time be "outraged" about seeing a repost get more upvotes than the original or that the "Art World" has become a vapid waste of contemporary fashion, pop stars, and attention whores. I get "angry" about things, but that doesn't necessarily mean becoming red in the face over it either.
But I have an invested interest in art and it disappoints me very often, because it so often seems that it's the concept or subject matter and not the execution that matters. The best defense for these guys was that they are gay activists - that's what really matters, not that the work is conceptually or artistically interesting.
Emphasis should be placed on both, in my opinion. A poorly executed "excellent idea" shouldn't be considered Art any more than an expertly painted garage door should be considered Art. My view is a lot more complicated than that, but that's the main kernal of my problem with the "Art World" today.