I would rather an artist made what is real, rather than simple representation. The “real” thing in art may not be concrete, observable, or measurable and could be made real by the very creation of the artistic piece.
Let me clarify - my sentence was a bit confusing; I am saying that an artist is always making “what is real” - just as much as everything else is, it can be nothing else. To call something “unreal” would be only “unreal” in terms of liberalism, communism, good, bad, or whatever custom you want. Everything you do is a concrete thing, by the fact that you do it.
Ex: If you call yourself a dancer and than dance - and someone says “that wasn’t real dancing” it becomes a bit dubious. That was a very silly and superficial, and maybe even arguable, example but hopefully you get the picture.
That all said, and assuming no one want to play language games:
You are correct “capitalists” tend not to be as artistically inclined as most other social categories. Even to the point where many liberterian types actually turn their noses down to art / artists. I don’t know if it’s for the reasons you are saying, or if it is just more of a personality thing, or something else. There are probably a few good plausible explainations out there - yours being one of them.
I would tend to associate it with more of a “practical” vs “unpractical” type of thing (what type of “thing” I am talking about; social, mental, peronal, economic, philisophical, etc I don’t know) just off the top of my head; which may be related to what you are getting at, but this stuff becomes really hard to think or talk about.
