With a name like "Philip Kennicott," there's probably no chance this guy would ever be able to see past the silver spoons lodged in his trachea to the understanding that there is no inherent division between high art and low art other than the ultimate patronage/purchaser, but this particular line struck me as to how blind he truly is to the ivory-tower fallacy that's been constructed around it: "this billion-dollar vanity project".

Please point me at any museum of note that is NOT a billion-dollar vanity project. You can like or not like any art according to whatever aesthetic or social parameters you choose; it's the third most subjective thing about being human, after food and sex. But to base part of your argument on, essentially, "the taste of wealthy people defines art, just not THIS wealthy person" is highly revealing, to say the least.