Your argument: "The great man theory is right, you're dumb if you disagree."
Sure, I'm pretty dumb, but why should I believe you?
No reasons or arguments are provided, just an assertion.
On the other hand, "a lot of the very best software is made by either one person or a very small band of very close collaborators." is an argument - not very strong, but at least something, with prominent examples such as git, tex, Calibre, emacs, OBS, Minecraft, Stardew Valley, Sublime Text and many others.
Also the fact that it is this way in music, art, sculpture, writing, mathematics, game design, sport, cooking, fashion,....it would be shocking indeed if it was any different in programming
Art masterpieces are not built by committee. You list mostly what I'd consider arts.
You claim that programming is (like) an art.
And I think that's the difference. The opinion you're arguing against comes from the perspective that programming on a larger team to solve real world problems is (like) an engineering discipline. Engineering is both an art and a science, but more importantly engineering is a collaborative process.
And that's why the focus of the piece was on social aspects of engineering and avoiding blame culture.
We need better terms than were using. "Programming" is about as useful in this discussion as "building things with rock." Does that mean stacking cairns? Does that mean fine art sculpture? Does that mean designing highways and dams?