I suspect the "bad" argument is actually compatible with division of talent and labour. Could you explain the link between this division and income?
> You wouldn't apply it to physicists, engineers, medical specialists, lawyers, politicians [1], financial experts, sports, or software developers. > So why is it fine to apply it to an art?
Because history shows us that "some" art gets done, even when no money is directly involved. And actually, it's the same for physicists, engineers, sports, software developers - not sure about lawyers, policitans, or financial experts.
Now we have to ask ourselves: for all these domains, what's an acceptable amount for "some"?