And this is different from what the advertiser hopes to do with a Moby song how? You seem to be trying to make the case that "back in the old days" artists didn't sell their songs to commercials. I'm saying that they probably would have in greater numbers if: A) Their had been the number and size of offers that there are today, and B) Radio had been as tigthtly formatted and exclusive as it is today. Moby's success in circumventing radio speaks for itself, as does Sting's.
As for your Van Gogh bit, I'm not sure what your point is, but I still maintain that Van Gogh would have like to have made some money in his lifetime by selling his paintings.
Finally, yes, lots of people like to paint in their backyards and never show anyone, or noodle around on a guitar in their basements, but the moment they start asking for money for it, whether it's at the neighborhood art fair, at the local bar, or on a national TV spot, they're engaged in a commercial enterprise.
I'm surprised at what an idealist you are. You should read some of Thomas Frank's stuff, particularly "The Conquest of Cool."
Why do you think that some jingle writers employ sound-alike singers? Why do you think that these same people get sued just for hiring someone who sounds like a celebrity to sing a commerical song? If that same singer were to record a single instead, there would be no lawsuit.
It really rankles you for me to call Moby out for what he did, doesn't it?
Beyond "backyard" painters there are graphic designers who labor on their own private artworks for the sheer pleasure. Robert Crumb has maintained sketchbooks since his high school days. He draws on the placemat while waiting for food in a restaurant and he continues drawing after the meal while everyone drinks their coffee. He is not drawing all of those drawings so that he can have even more drawings to sell (each of those drawings is worth $800-2500).
The artists who are in it for the cash cheapen their works. Salvador Dali did by signing blank pieces of paper that were later printed with "fine art prints". Andy Warhol did by mass producing silk screened "art" in a factory. These people didn't even do any of their own art themselves after a point, it was just another brand name.
An artist can sell his work (or find a sponsor) without being a "sell out". Capitalism is good and earning a dollar is well and good. I know enterprising artists who have sold their works themselves, published their own books, staged their own gallery openings. When finding the next buyer (and crafting works specifically for that audience) is the overruling consideration before "creating" something, then the commerce has taken priority over the art.
Graphic design commercial art and soundtrack music can be nice but it is forever tied to its sponsor. Moby's album is elligible for a Grammy even though all 18 cuts were used for ads. The artist who painted all of those Coca-Cola ads will never get his day in an art museum because he was a "hack". He could have been a modern artist like those who splattered paint (Pollack) or scribbled on chalk boards (Twombley) but he was too busy chasing that dollar (at least according to the art world). Of course he was more honest to his craft and never made nearly the dollar of Pollack or Twombley.
Real artists create because it is a part of their personality. It is how they communicate and there is a psychological release from "creating".
I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: the artists I've known personally who've been able to isolate the commercial and creative influences on art let their wives manage their career. The artist never has to be the one to break the "bad" news about how expensive something is and does not contemplate "well if I do more like these, I can charge more money".