The better reporting -- and art criticism -- regarding Ryder Ripps' "Art Whore" piece came not from the art world but from the "hipster" media. Michelle Lhooq's* Vice article attempted a rational, pros-and-cons defense of the work, after the art sites served up mostly kneejerk reaction.
Lhooq thinks the main point of the piece is exploring the definition of consent. I'd say the main point is the continuing use of fine art by the FIRE sector** as a sweetener for property values, in a city where artists can no longer afford to live. (To recap, Ripps thumbed his nose at a hotel that invited him to work gratis as a one-night "artist in residence" by making an elaborate prank aimed at the, let's just say, less-discussed side of their business; this was more effective than simply refusing the commission.) The debates over "exploitation" served as a distraction to discredit the piece, to FIRE's ultimate benefit.
*LHOOQ is a famous Marcel Duchamp punchline, so Michelle isn't a complete art outsider.
**Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, a term used by Robert Fitch and others to describe an extractive, rather than productive economy.