The Sistina is a great illustration of what I'm talking about, actually.
Michelangelo spent something like 12 years on and off planning, painting and adorning the Chapel.
He made thousands of sketches and studies and went far above and beyond the original terms of his contract. No one can honestly say the commission he received for the Sistina was adequate to the time and effort he invested in it, let alone made it a profitable transaction for him.
If I'm not mistaken, he was paid more for the Paulina nearby, and it's never even metioned among his great works - most people don't even realize he was the painter, and compared to the Sistina it looks very uninspired and generic.
No one said these people are good businessmen. But they do it for pay. Like books and music.
Anyway, carry on. None of it is important, your opinion was noted, and discarded. Just like your attacks on me.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see the distinction you're drawing here. Art, especially writing, is pure profit once you've paid for the materials. If you choose to make a dime a day at it, it's still profit.
Great works of art may, of course, be produced while the artist starves. That does not mean that starving is a necessary precondition to art, nor does it mean that eating is not a necessary precondition. It means that the artist has found a means other than art to support him- or herself.
Profit and professionalism aren't necessary in making automobiles, either - you could certainly make a case that some very fine stuff is produced by highschool mechanics working in their spare time. If you restrict the automobile world to only such individuals by denying profit, however, I don't think it would be a gain overall either in terms of the quality or the quantity of the autos produced. So with art.