No, it is not, and here we have the crux of the discussion and the reason your argument is entirely fallacious. Your contention that no one writes a great work for "profit" depends entirely on a private definition of that term. To state that "labor is a real cost of doing business" is to state that you can arbitrarily assign any value you like to a writer's time. No wonder you can define your way around "profit"!
That contention flies in the face of specific statements to the contrary by some of the greatest writers and artists in their respective fields, which you choose to either ignore (as in the case of Samuel Johnson) or to wiggle around by a misdirection, as in "Shakespeare didn't write his plays for publishing, he wrote them to be performed." Irrelevant.
Why did Michaelangelo, a great artist, paint the Sistine Chapel or sculpt David, great works of art? For money, to eat, pay rent - and for that little left over that is the real definition of "profit." To claim that it was for a "commission," not "profit" is to try to use that special definition to exempt his case. It does not.
Writers write for any number of reasons - Shakespeare's sonnets, for example, were not written for money, where his plays were - but professionals do it for a living. If you don't believe it, ask one.
My definition of profit is not a private one.
The American Heritage Dictionary: "The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met."
No wonder you can define your way around "profit"!
I stand by the common, standard dictionary definition.
Why did Michaelangelo, a great artist, paint the Sistine Chapel or sculpt David, great works of art? For money, to eat, pay rent - and for that little left over that is the real definition of "profit."
So we do have the same definition: that "little left over."
As I said earlier, Michelangelo was originally contracted to decorate the Chapel in 1505. He was still working on it in 1541, long after his original commission had been spent. The Pauline Chapel which he also painted for money still exists - and no one cares about it. It just wasn't a great work.
The Sistine Chapel, however, he worked on and worked on, pouring his heart and soul into it long after he had been paid.
He took the job for money - but if it had been about money or even profit, he would have banged it out as quickly as possible, done a workmanlike job like he did on the Pauline, and called it a day.
Great art, the Sistines as opposed to the Paulines, has little to do with money in the final analysis.