Art(ifact) - Your roots are showing

Raymond Williams is careful not to allow his arguments to become too reductive. He shows his readers many doors but no true exits from the relationships between art and market in relation to cultural production (or 'reproduction'), whether that be articulated in his five stages of patron/artists ties, or his examination of their institutions of perpetuation. However, one of those bricked off doors stuck out in my mind as an interesting example of commodification of art.... or more specifically, commodification of artifacts.
The differentiation of art from artifact becomes an iffy one to make. An artifact is a product of human agency or craft as opposed to something inherent to nature. Traditionally, art is (simply) a conscious human effort to imitate, complement, or alter the work of nature. Indeed for Marxists both are basically expressions of the class interests and socio-economic world-views of certain distinctive groups in society, for Williams they are equally market driven, but not all cultural production has been transformed in to a market commodity type. Still, the question that lingers for me is the question of art vs. artifact and where does one end and the other begin. For Williams, art and artifact are almost interchangeable and mediated in a kind of checks and balances system by the patron/artist relationship.
I found myself fascinated by the implications of his discussion on the differences between 'artisans,' 'craftsmen' and 'artists' and the utility of the objects they create. More specifically, the ways in which objects are displayed. Where better to illustrate the market forces of patronage than a museum? He does mention the institution of the exhibition of art (starting on pg 61), and I got to thinking about more permanent displays of art and artifacts, particularly that of the museum. Not only Art museums are the products of wealthy individuals (patrons) amassing private collections, but in fact most museums (whether History, Maritime, Science, or even Zoos and Botanical Gardens) are the result of private patronage. Land, pieces of interest, even payroll are often only possible through donations. The objects themselves are displayed similarly, whether they be an early stone hammer or VerMeer's Girl With the Pearl Earring. One obviously serves a more practical use, while the other does not. Value, then dictated by the market forces of the various markets of patronage or cost of acquisition of cultural products, is just as complex as Williams might suggest. It's not surprising to me that Williams remained more optimistic concerning the agency of the common man. His final work was a historical novel about the common man done in snapshots from the Paleolithic era through the modern. A kind of history museum of Williams own design. Obviously history is an important aspect to Williams interpretation of culture, production, and market. Whether the Cultural production be of Art or artifact, it is the artist or artisan that controls cultural production and utility of said item. There in lies the agency or power of the producer. The patron merely ascribes the art(ifact) market value.