I agree, in art, the blue chipping of art and the excessive capitalistic Darwinism can apply.

But, um, What? I think you might be over-romanticizing art. Face Off, Ink Master, and America Idol say more about society than the artist and what it does to poor, disadvantaged artists more than anything else. That is the reality. In the past, artists (middle or lower classes) lived hand-to-mouth at the church's mercy as with royalty and the wealthy. Their creativity was stifled, controlled, and dictated. They were also pawns and pitted against each other and dropped at whim. Craftspeople who created detailed work tended to be paid pennies on the dime for their art; people who painted the beautiful Roccoco tea sets were being lowballed until the work was given to others who almost did the job for nothing.

You tend to make work on your terms and dictate your thematic when you are independently wealthy, or your food, rent, etc. isn't tied to your artistic endeavors. I've gone to many countries where artists will coldcock another artist to sell you their work. As an artist and a curator who knows hundreds of artists, I will never argue with an artist how or what method they use to sell their work.

...when you don't have any film to take a photograph to make more art and are on your 4th week of eating oatmeal twice every day made with water because you refuse to sell to a buyer who wants to buy your work because it matches their furniture... you have to start to reconsider things; that was me I was that artist.

I think another way to understand is that art perseveres despite artistic or capitalist Darwinism, and this "noble philosophical starving" artist trope is something in vogue starting in the late 1800's. You are skirting "Art for art's sake" ideology, and that is a perspective of profound privilege.