> and all parties fall into the first category [...] Of course there are some artists who sit comfortably in the grey area between the two oppositions

I'm not sure what your background is, but there are definitly artists out there drawing, painting and creating art they have absolutely zero care for, or even actively is against or don't like, but they do it anyways because it's easier to actually get paid doing those things, than others.

Take a look in the current internet art community and ask how many artists are actively liking the situation of most of their art commissions being "furry lewd art", vs how many commissions they get for that specific niche, as just one example.

History has lots of other examples, where artists typically have a day-job of "Art I do but do not care for" and then like the programmer, hack on what they actually care about outside of "work".

Agreed, but I'd say these would be artists in the "grey area". They are capable of drawing furry art, for example, and have the choice to monetize that, even though they might have become bored with it.

I was mostly considering contemporary artists that you see in museums, and not illustrators. Most of these have moved on to different media, and typically don't draw or paint. They would therefore also not be able to draw commission pieces. And most of the time their work does not sell well.

(Source: am professionally trained artist, tried to sell work, met quite a few artists, thought about this a lot. That's not to say that I may still be completely wrong though, so I liked reading your comment!)

Edit: and of course things get way more complicated and nuanced when you consider gallerists pushing existing artists to become trendy, and artists who are only "discovered" after their deaths, etc. etc.)