Is this text written to be read?

Here’s a text that was sent to me by a friend of mine. A joke.
Well, actually, the text itself is not supposed to be a joke.
It’s the serious presentation of an artists’ project by a contemporary art institution in Paris. Here it is:
(view original on line)

Why do institutions write like that? Why do they address me in that peculiar way? Why do they tend to go for that system of sentences escaping meaning?

«The artistic twosome (…) has its sights on an art offering a return to economic and social reality in our society; as such, the artists direct their work towards specific forms of intervention in public places.»
What do they mean by «a return to economic and social reality in our society »?
What is a come back to economic reality? Do they mean something was better before? Did it used to be more “real”? Did we just go beyond reality and I didn’t know? Are we in post-economic reality? That could be an interesting science fiction idea but I have no clue about what it would represent today. When the author speaks about economic reality does he or she mean the actual experience of people in terms of consumption, level of income and debts, credits and saving rates, cost of living and of course the qualitative and quantitative variations in time? Do they refer to a group of people or to individuals? What society is «our society»? We the French? The middle class? Poor artists? Europeans? The West?
And what about social reality? Have they been bought by TF1, that horrible French TV and their horrible reality shows…
«The artistic twosome (…) has its sights on an art offering a return to (…) reality» Are there words missing? Are there a few too many? I just don’t get it. I swear, I don’t.

Well, to be honest I have to admit I’m a bit politically annoyed by the dangerous confusion between notions of economic realities and analyses. (So there is meaning somehow in there…)
I am also annoyed -straight forwards annoyed- when I am talked about specific interventions, with no precision what so ever on how or why it is specific.
You might as well write the contrary. «Non-specific interventions» would have the same effect on my brain as «specific interventions».
Pffff….
Help. If it is « questioning the notion of ownership today», please give me a clue on how it does it because I’m lost here.

So my question is: Is this text meant to be read? If so, who by ?

Am I outside the target here and therefore this text should no concern of mine?
Am I “badly fucked” like an art critic called me after reading one of my texts of one of his texts? I know this is not English. You’d say “sandy vagina” or something like that. But “Badly fucked” is very French and it allows me to say if I were my lover I would not be happy about that.
Or did I miss anything? Like everybody knows it doesn’t mean anything? Isn’t it weird? If I were paranoid, on top of being “badly fucked”, I’d think there was a conspiracy behind all this.
Am I outside reality when I cannot figure out what they mean by « weaving bonds, drawing in new attitudes on the part of the public, and redefining new challenges »
The wardrobe? The one « set down in the communal area of collective housing project (…) illustrating the private aspect of the place where its stands »?’?
By the way, what do they call « a collective housing project »? Do they mean flats for poor people? As you may or may not know, there are very few people in Paris who live outside residential blocks. I mean I know someone with a small house, but it’s in the suburb…
Pfffff. (again). This can’t be for me, I know that.

So who is it for? I’d really like to know. Yes, I 'de really like to know who they are talking to?

Sorry about all the English mistakes....