"Art is not defined by whether or not someone pays to see/hear it. In fact, it might be argued that defining "art" as something others will pay for would tend to corrupt the artistic process.

If you create "art" for the sole reason of selling it, you aren't really an artist. (My humble opinion as an artist) "

That's Nonsense. Art is a commodity, and being an artist is a profession. Sure, there is amateur art, but we're talking about Professional Musicianship, which is fundamentally a commercial endevour. There's nothing "corrupt" about it because there was never anything "pure" about the art making process in the first place. Artists do have to eat after all. The only time corruption comes into play is when the government is funding it or when musicians/artists justify outlandish salaries based on their "artistic genius."