I'd agree with you if it actually helped artists find their artistic stride - there is definitely artistic merit in forced constraints. But it doesn't; it forces them to commercialise to pay rent. To make what is commercially appealing (or appealing to a patron) rather than what they actually want to make.
And I totally agree with the argument that commercial appeal == value, and artists don't automatically deserve a living. The whole "Spotify should pay us more because we can't live on what they pay us" argument leaves me cold. But I think that's a different discussion. If you are going to force artists to commercialise then that argument applies, and artists must adapt their art to commercial reality, or starve, like everyone else. However that's not the same discussion as "if we paid everyone a basic income, I wonder what amazing art would be created?". Different starting premise.
And I totally agree with the argument that commercial appeal == value, and artists don't automatically deserve a living. The whole "Spotify should pay us more because we can't live on what they pay us" argument leaves me cold. But I think that's a different discussion. If you are going to force artists to commercialise then that argument applies, and artists must adapt their art to commercial reality, or starve, like everyone else. However that's not the same discussion as "if we paid everyone a basic income, I wonder what amazing art would be created?". Different starting premise.