And, actually, yeah, you should read up on it yourself if you want to argue the point. Otherwise, well, you won't know anything about anything anybody says about the topic.
You could read up on Mark Kostabi as well. Fascinating guy, with a sharp sense of how critics in fine art work, and can be worked.
And, yes, some critics are totally viable, and valuable. But they aren't the ones searching for hot artists to create work that justifies their views.
I still don't get it. Admittedly, I'm just wiki'ing the people you mention and following your links. I don't have much of a point other than that I desperately want to understand your position while you keep stuffing me with straw. I'd love to see primary or secondary data where an artist admits to altering hir work in order to manipulate the false consciousness of an influential critic and further thereby experiences financial and critical success. Otherwise I'll probably just take critics in general for granted and wonder why you're so worked up about it.
It's interestingly similar to the whole rabid animal sub-thread that's going on here. Folks keep waiting for "proof" of its vitriolic specificity while declaiming it as nothing more than a garden variety epithet.
IIRC Moon doesn't actually call the term racist, just loaded. And it is. To call a human an animal is to consider hir a chiefly physical, non-rational entity. Most of the folks defending it here would never use it except, I dunno, to describe the most violent criminals. Tacking rabid onto animal solidly connotes that which cannot be reasoned with and needs to be put down. It's almost always racially charged. The most strident commentators on Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman are still slinging it back and forth. It comes up in connection to President Obama with alarming frequency. So, really, modern usage hangs rabid animal squarely where Moon placed it: loaded and unacceptable. That there's a strong literary and philosophical tradition of referring to non-whites as animals, in the specifically non-human sense, by whites only exacerbates the insult. The Valente post that begins this thread is specifically about incommensurate and unequal commentary based on gender, but it applies to ethnicity as well. Animal robs the target of agency and reason. Rabid specifically connotes a death warrant.
In a discussion about shouting down women and threatening them with violence for stating opinions, why are so many folks defending robbing one of agency and marking hir for death? The general ignorance on display isn't an excuse, really. I don't remember encountering the n-word before I was seven, but when someone told me that was offensive I never thought to use it or excuse it.