This question inspired me two part of response.
In the past, some have tried to take radical positions against art market like conceptual artists with “unsaleable” immaterial works, or (suposed to be) “un-buyable” works like artist shit, but all those experiences were made into the art field which is not outside of the global capitalist system.
Thanks to those experiences, we now know that this system is able to integrate absolutely everything, the critic even more. Trying to make the art world changes without trying to change the whole thing is for me unconceivable ((even if I know this is no small matter.))
I think that we now have new kind of positions which are no longer envisaged within a system of binary oppositions (artist or curator, gallery or offspace, private or public). I relate them to the kind of “potlach” you are speaking about in Network Culture when you say that “money-comodity and gift relations are not just in conflict but also co-exist in symbiosis” we could say the same for the organisations of our productions and for what we are setting up as groups and individuals.
Actually I have to confess that what scared me more on the hyper commodification of art is the way it makes it more and more looks like the mass music industry. I mean the « Kleenex artits » phenomenon ; very young people with a kind of un-mature and standardised work, used for three-four years then thrown away. As they are broadly disseminated, those kind of works tends to become new canons.