Over at the Freakonomics blog, there’s a review of a new book about Mark Twain, and a discussion about whether art and money-making are (or ought to be) opposed to each other. 

The Twain book sounds especially fascinating to anyone who is interested in the twin arts of writing and money-making. I always want to sneer at people who sneer at writers who wish to actually be paid for their work. This troupe of sneerers seem to believe that writing is art and that art comes from the soul and that the fruits of the soul shall not be bought. Here, for instance, is Willa Cather on the subject:

Religion and art spring from the same root and are close kin. Economics and art are strangers.

To which I say: Feh. Or, to cite another master, Keith Richards:

Art? As far as I’m concerned, that’s just a shortening of “Arthur.” 

Consider it the analog to the Olympics vs. Professional Sports.  Is a great basketball player in the NBA any less of an athlete or any less to be appreciated because they make a zillion dollars a year in salary and sponsorships?  It’s fine to admire Olympians who are in it for the love of the sport — but not only does the love of the sport not exclude a fat contract, achievement even if motivated by a fat contract is achievement nonetheless.

I would argue the same is true for art, including writing.