I just seen this comment now, so I am answering late - probably neither you nor anyone else will read it, but writing this answer is, in a way, catharsis.
To your question: That's just it - he is wildly successful. What was he trying to do: make more money! I don't begrudge an artist for success and money, but he departed from creating art for the sake of art, to art for the sake of money. The art market is a strange place. While the majority of artists who are as good or even better than the darlings of the market, this is kept very exclusive to keep the value high. To elevate an artist into the stratosphere where only oligarchs can afford their work is obscene, to put it mildly. To collect any of these so called "Modern Masters", museums not as well funded would have to de-acquisition some of their (what I call) 'real' art by true masters, just to afford keeping up with the times (whatever that means).
I don't know where you stand as a curator, but I wish curators would buck that fashion trend and show what is really out there in the artworld. There are many very good artists out there that can't get displayed and recognized, since most curators play it safe and exhibit those from a very narrow field of the illustrious anointed. The scepticism that Robert Hughes expressed about him (and some others) and collectors like Mugrabi I found refreshing.