that person has no idea of what he is talking about. I don't drink and never brought a bottle of wine in my life. so even if they are free you won't see me buying one.The same go with art many in this world don't buy art so even artists lower the price of their paintings they will not buy. One can not turn a vegetarian into a meat eater by lower the price of beef!
the person writing that article is a cheapskate. that bottle of wine is bad comparison because it's mass produced, and honestly cheap for a reason. so it's easy to make a bottle of wine cheaper because you can make more. they become more expensive as they age and become more rare. art should always go up in value, just because she can't afford it doesn't mean people should lessen their prices. she will be able to get other artists things at a low price, she should be so lucky that the originals are being sold for more. it means she got a good investment. but to compare one of a kind art with a cheap bottle of wine is just silly.
While not a painter, I will lower my prices on wall ready photography if and when Costo picks up my work and I can sell at Wallyworld volumes. Until then, I remain expensive.
Edit: That is what I got out of the article BTW. Sure, wine produced in great volume can go down in price and still provide the vineyard a profit. BUT, if the vineyard were producing a few hundred bottles a year total, they would be out of business pretty quickly if they sold them for 11 bucks.