It's still new in comparison to the traditional mediums (millennia as opposed to decades). Photography has been around more than 100 years and you still get people questioning it as a "valid" medium. I think some of digital art's problem is similar to photography in another way. The easy reproducibility of that art devalues it in some people's eyes. Anything "popular" or "accessible" is always suspect in some circles.Digital art is not new. The art world refuses to accept it because the art world is controlled by people who refuse to align with something they think is beneath art. They have a limited view of "Art" . They have forfeited the connection that existed between art and science for the idea of "conceptualism" which is devoted to the cult of personality and excludes anything which they deem to be non personal.
I think you're giving the "art elite" more power than they're really due. There's not just one art market with New York or Paris as the center. There's multiple art centers and multiple markets.
There's even a parallel market for realist/traditional painting that takes very little direction from New York or Paris. You'll never hear about these artists and galleries in Art News or see them in major museums, but go to Dallas, Denver, Aspen, or Jackson Hole and you'll see street after street of galleries selling work at high prices. Artists a New York gallery wouldn't consider representing, and that's fine. They're still making a good living making and selling art. They're funded by oil billionaires who don't care what's selling in NY. They buy stuff they like and it isn't conceptual art.