Art and Integrity

So I was chatting with some friends of the family who happened to be artists and we came upon this question: can art survive in a consumer-driven society? King Crimson guitarist, Robert Fripp once said something to the tune of "to make music as a way of making money is to be a businessman and not a musician" is this to say that monetary profit from art kills the art?
I don't think so, but I think that of the arts, music has suffered the most from this. I think that the essence of art lies in the purity of expression. The need to use the senses as a vehicle for transmitting some emotion is what sets art apart from sound or sight or reason and what makes art so important. Art is a reaffirmation of our humanity, a reminder that we can feel countless emotions, interpret, and reason. The transition from artist to medium to recipient and all of the little processes that happen in between give art its vitality and power. Thus, to corrupt the initial vision with thoughts of profit, to filter it through the grid of what will or will not sell decomposes its integrity.
This however cannot render it "art-less” because most likely retains some part of the value to the viewer/reader/listener, which is important, but a society like this one simply does not nurture the initial process. I think music is the most hurt because it's the easiest form of art to take in, it is so available and all you have to do is sit there to experience it. But going back to the corruption of art, if there are three elements (artist, medium, and appreciator) and two phases in between, where does the corruption of the initial phase come from, really? I think this lies in the implication of purpose. For example, when one creates art for an end like fame or money it kills the creative force. If you have to contemplate "what sold last time" or "what's in now" before picking up the paintbrush, you've immediately doomed the whole process because art is about honesty.
We live every day crafting a very particular image of ourselves, manipulating how we are perceived through modification of behavior. We establish what we want and then sculpt our images accordingly; monetary concerns in the initial part of the creative process achieve a similar effect. The artist (or should I say businessman) sculpts or paints according to what they think will make them famous or wealthy which is by definition devoid of integrity. That honesty, that expression through canvas is the physical manifestation of the core of the artist and thus their humanity. Take away the humanity of art and it is no longer art but rather an image as soulless as a tile floor.
But since we humans do not have sensitive integrity-detecting equipment we are still capable of appreciating "soul-less art." so, which is more important then? Perhaps neither. I know from experience that "soul-less" art can be meaningful and can still resonate within people, but as a musician and hopefully, one day a novelist, I must have faith that this kind of art can not have as deep an impact, on the whole as art that has maintained its integrity throughout the whole process.