I think the crux of the problem is that the economic structure of galleries informs the way artists make work, instead of the other way round.

...*or*, the economic structure of galleries informs how artists who want to support themselves through their work make their work, while those that do not care as much about making money from their output don't find this to be the case.

And that their representative structures force artists to find a way to brand themselves.

Perhaps it is this way because it is simply good, effective, tried and true proven advice from people who's business it is to help the artist sell their art. Taking into account the goals of the artists, this could be a great benefit that galleries provide to artists.

Both force many artists to step away from their true selves....but that is just my speculation.

I think that the path of sustainment via gallery distribution and self-branding need not be contradictory to most artist's "true selves" and that even the emphasis on this "true self" might be misplaced to begin with and hint at a kind of platonic idealism that exists and matters less than people might wish it did.

I think that we have to look at artists through practical lenses and not hold their work above them too much. There is nothing dirty about paying your rent. A true artist will always put their voice into the world no matter what percentage (does not have to be 100, right?) of their art touches commerce.