My general thought is that, by and large, societies shouldn’t grant musicians or poets or artists or whatever a free pass just for being artists. I believe that people need to both specialize and generalize: sure, specialize in songwriting, that’s awesome and society needs it, but it also probably needs you to weed, or sort through trash. And the person who specializes in gardening might also paint, which is -also- a contribution to society. But basically, I don’t think that artists should be encouraged to pay their societal dues through media creation alone.

And I also agree with your assertion that artists should not be seen as separate than professionals, though I would say scientists more accurately describes it. It’s a very constructivist notion, which I love. However, you definitely lose me with the “you can’t eat a poem” business. Art is social lubrication and if we’re intent on creating an anarchic gift economy, then art functions as much more than the basic commodity, it is the foundation of our ability to share, to cooperate and to communicate. In examples of functional gift economies, historically or in present day, art objects (often fashion accessories) are the main ways that inequity is rectified, peace is maintained, and solidarity is demonstrated. In that way, I think you could say without the poem, you would starve.

ps. if you get a chance please shoot me an email, boulevardier4eva.wordpress.com, I have a proposal for you, of love… j/k! it’s a project I want to see if you’d be interested in collaborating on…