Art V's The Commodity?

Some say that art is a product and some say it isn't. The fact of the matter is that art sells and is therefore, sometimes, a commodity. That doesn't mean it has to be about money - indeed sometimes it is against it's own 'commodification' - such as Damien Hirst's Skull, which is priceless! Nicolas Bourriaud, in Relational Aesthetics, suggested that the art event/experience itself could be used as a way of making art that is experienced outside of capitalist exchange, suggesting it might be possible to separate art and the commodity, or at least make a statement about being against the commodification of art, by making the art experience the 'art object' itself. But can we really separate art from commodity in the consumer age? And what is the point arguing the toss? If artists want to make autonomous work that makes a comment about capitalist society or make socially-engaged public art that's great isn't it? We must all want diverse art, afterall. But if the money isn't there to support artists then they are forced into creating art work for others, rather than themselves deciding how their work might manifest and one of the downsides and ironies of Relational Aesthetics is that it has added to the argument that calls for a justification of the impact of art that characterised the last decade and the political search for evidence of arts transformative power - which Relational Art suggested in its implication that art can rebuild the damaged bonds between people caused by individualistic consumption. But anyway, can art really exist outside the exchanges of capitalist culture? A simple answer is perhaps: not if it wants to make any money, or use money to make it!
We can however, find new ways of making art using sustainable resources, which might offset the costs in the long run. And if the profits of art, whatever they may be, are without an element of exploitation, political or otherwise, then this kind of works against the idea of art as a commodity, I think?