where exactly does he allude to "nerds" mandatorily being interested in "nerdy things"?

his point was that the article had a very old world elitist attitude where "art" = "culture" and if one is to be considered cultured and is rich, there is somehow some obligation to purchase art.

it smelled more of, "give me some of that hi-tech money" than any serious exposition about the rift between the tech rich and the art world.