The art market is not like other markets. It is a place thoroughly entrenched in it's competing sides of culture and commerce. In the "Hostile Worlds View", the two spheres of culture and economy represent the two primary ways to valuate artworks in the modern market. It claims that these spheres, or factors, are independent of each other and damaging to the value of the art in either sense to combine them. While I am not necessarily one hundred percent in agreement with this statement, as I will illustrate later, it explains much about the physical and social architecture of the modern art market as it has developed. 
Because many gallery owners understand the fact that they, according to this model, operate in two spheres at once, the physical space for primary contemporary sales is split into two places as well, each correlating to a different realm. In the front room, the art is kept in a pure state of exhibition. The architecture is sparse without decoration or "comforts" which could be seen as marketing or advertising ploys. There is little to no information immediately available to a visitor about pricing, which happens instead upon request. The visitor is also purposefully not harassed by employees present, and allowed to look on in peace for their own enjoyment. The back room is another story. It is a place for money to exchange hands, business deals to be made, and secretive transactions behind closed doors which allow the front room to maintain it's pure distance from the back. The back room is often more like an office or a store room for works to be held and then sold. There are computers, and paper work, and price lists, and chairs, a combination which often reminds me of the dealings of a car dealership. Gallery owners have developed this gallery architecture as a way to emphasize the cultural value of art as objects that need to be displayed for the joy of seeing them, while also acknowledging the need for transactions to keep their businesses afloat. 
A bare gallery space.
In the instance of gallery sales, the gallery owners hope that a piece will never again be sold or at least not for many years. It is their belief that such sales would harm the cultural value of the piece by replacing it with economic value. According to the research presented in the writings, many think that by even assigning art a monetary value, we diminish its worth as culturally important. One common thought is that purchasing power in the hands of collectors who are not experts, and thus buy things they think are "pretty" instead of important works at hight prices, has the ability to homogenize the art market. The market is thus flooded with mediocre work and overlooks the more consequential pieces. Another fear is that buyer only concerned with the status of the work and its economic value would overlook pieces of worth for pieces of price in order to increase their collection's "sign value". In this scenario, the art market runs parallel to strategies for branding of products and the exchange of art as stocks and bonds.
In the Hostile Worlds View, the gallery is seen as a symbolic solution based on the traditions of "appropriate" spaces to make transactions. They can emphasize the cultural value of the art, true. But more importantly, they care about the art and the artist and create lasting relationships to support both. Here, the gallery is seen as a meeting place for social networking which will enhance the cultural experience of the work for the buyer. Collectors are invited to meet the artist, attend dinner parties for patrons of the arts, and given preferential treatment in future sales. The establishing of friendships helps to remove the art even farther from categorization as a commodity. I was also interested in the seeming implications of the gallery space as an obsolete space in the realm of economic trade, which continues to exist merely for its value in the moderation of hostile worlds views and tradition. The author cites the economic aspects of galleries as "inefficient". Does anyone else hold this view as well?
Artists, collectors, dealers, and the like gather at a vernissage in Berlin.
On the other hand, auction houses can be seen as the nemesis for people who believe that the indifferent nature of the sales transaction, and the ability of any one to buy the work if the price is right, takes away from the work. Galleries reserve the right to refuse the sale of art to anyone they believe could harm the future value of the work (both culturally and economically). Auction houses seem here to be less concerned with the symbolic value of the art, and more concerned with selling at premium prices. For them, any buyer will do. For galleries, museums are cited as the best place to situate a piece of art. Museums often maintain work for generations, if they ever sell at all. They also highlight the symbolic value of the art as a cultural cornerstone. Unfortunately when a museum sells work it can incite a scandal unless the museum can justify the sale for increasing its cultural significance with new acquisitions. Viki Sand, former chief executive of the Philly art museum was seen as saying that her institution "is not an art museum" after a major sale was made to fund renovations.
I am part of the moderate group who believes that art speculation can be damaging at times. I think that often assigning a monetary value to artistic merit is a necessary way to value art in terms that go beyond personal emotional and time values in a society that understands and appreciates a more universal language of trade. However, I do also acknowledge that damage can be done when one confuses price with value and begins to see these as the same things. This is particularly true for people who collect art solely for it's monetary value, and who then totally devalue it as an aesthetic reality by storing it in a vault or warehouse, and not utilizing its "utility".