Art for Art's sake

I am a novelist, or at least one that inspires to become a novelist. I am also a poet, a painter, a . . . well I am a person who has dabbled in many different forms of the arts. During the course of these hobbies I've developed a philosophy about my craft just like I'm sure many other artists do, and tonight I was faced with the opportunity to discuss this philosophy with a friend who also considers herself to be an artist. As a result, I've decided to record the content of the argument as justly as I can, though I must warn you that I cannot help but be at least slightly biased on the issue.
For the sake of keeping the argument brief, let's narrow the focus of the argument down to the medium of art that I and my friend (here on named B) are most familiar with, fiction. B's argument is that all professions cannot be separated from their setting which is business. The production of fiction is a multi billion dollar industry. The term "writer" is one that society gives sparingly. Those who want the title have to earn it, and that must be done by attaining a certain level of sales. Despite what people want to think, Art is only realized when it is viewed, and the artist is only as great as how many people are able, willing, and wanting to read the work. This is the summary of the first argument.
The philosophy on this subject, which I have rigorously followed is quite different. I tend to subscribe to a more Aristitilian view, believing that there is something unique to art that transcends the dictations of business or society. "Art for art's sake," that's what I'll call it, and I know that this is not a new view, but perhaps I can find some dialectic which will expand previous understanding of the matter. My argument with B was this, art in general, specifically novel writing, is a conversation between two persons. The first is the author, the second is the audience. The audience does not have to be plural, it can be simply one reader. What makes the writer a writer is not the society's gift of the name to the author, it is the act of the exchange. Furthermore, what makes that writer an artist isn't the number of novels the novelist sells, but the catharsis that the novel induces in the reader. If the earlier argument is followed, then what is produced by the "writer" (so named by the society), isn't necessarily art but rather a manufacturing of sorts that is required to sell, but not to inspire the complex emotions and realizations that we have attributed to the great novelists of the past. Perhaps one would say that novels do not grow to be so popular without also producing these desirable effects, but we know from the state of modern fiction today that this is simply not true. Today, formula fiction is sold in the greatest quantities compared to other forms of literature. Novelists such as Laurel K. Hamilton, only have to recycle plots and phrases, throw in enough sex and keep a page turning plot going, in order to become one the highest selling authors of the decade.

After summarizing the arguments though, I'd like to make some final comments. I believe that it's important to realize that both of these philosophies must be taken into account to a certain extent. B's argument is true in that the writer is only a "writer" because someone named him or her so. If one wants to be acknowledged by the society in this way, and especially as a great writer, there is an expectancy that the writer is economically successful. However, there is a second layer to all of this, and that is that beneath society's dictation through granting titles, there is an individual appeal between each instance of artistic communication. What is it that makes a novel great art? I must continue to subscribe to my belief that great art is produced by passionate and inspired artists, who consider the writing process intimate and successful within itself, aside from the dictations of the society. It shouldn't be trends that dictate art, but rather internal movements of the soul that inspire the artist to action and through this action inspires the readers to recognize parts of themselves in others, thus relinking them with an understanding of what it means to be alive as a being but also as a whole. Perhaps I do not speak of Art for Art's sake, but rather Art for OUR sake.