[Quiet Man Cometh]

I think what Suze was getting at in his earlier post with the liberation of art from Capital comment, is that most paid artwork comes in the form of specific commissions. An artist is hired to do what the client wants, not what it might occur to the artist to do. Therefore, the artist's creative freedom is limited by the tastes and personal desires of the person/company paying for it. In that sense, artistic skills become tools like clerical skills or mechanical skills, etc.

I'm no history expert, but I don't believe there's ever been a time in history where someone could be expected to make a living off of art or literature. Those that did, were generally the exceptions. May artists could only fund their work by being supported by a patron, or by being rich themselves. I know several artists, but very few use their skills as their primary means of making money.

On the other hand, art is in many ways a philosophical entity as well. Who would count as an artist and who wouldn't? What about a chef who makes gourmet food, or a mechanic that restores old cars? There's a fair chance they would consider themselves artists as well, and believing that hasn't reduced the value of what they can do. It can pay the bills like any other skill.