Haacke

In the reading Haacke said that "the concept of change has been the ideological basis of my work" referring to the real-estate pieces. After reading about the pieces and functions of the titles, I thought that his works are pretty interesting such that the pieces are continually changing "as of" the starting date of the pieces. The Guggenheim museum rejected these real-estate pieces. In the reading, the author writes that these pieces "interrogated the museum as such a primary mediating agency, foregrounding how it determines and limits the reading of artists texts." In the past readings we have also read about critiques of the instituation. I wonder if Haacke had any idea before hand about how the museum might react to his addional pieces to his collection for his exhibition. Because the cancellation did actually make his real-estate pieces more popular.
This reading confuses me of how this article is still talking about comtemporary art because it goes on talking about landlords and property values. Why is there is interesting in property and relation to art and economics?