Do you agree with Frank Zappa when he says that art is making something out of nothing, and selling it?

Frank Zappa was correct in his statement that art is the ability to produce something from nothing and gain attention for that. In our modern society, some will agree with him, that art is nothing more than a process of creation rather than pure abstraction. Some people will disagree, understanding that art is creativity in its essence. There is no doubt that art take an important part in our society. But not only as a cultural manifestation, art has an important role in the economy. Music, paintings and movies can worth millions of dollars today. All of that wealth has risen interests on the market over the years and was responsible for the development of an specific industry of art. Because of it, it is possible to see music, for example, being produced in large scale, for an specific market or consumers. Even the term "consumers" counterpoints the view of "art for art". A single compositor can write many songs in a short period of time, using formulas that are more likely to be accepted by the public. In this approach, the better you know your consumer, more your art will be known and move valuable it will become. On the other hand, art can also be the expression of pure creativity. Taking again music as an example, there is no doubt that Mozart, Beethoven and Bach did not use formulas to catch attention of the public. Only because of their extraordinary gift for music and hard work, which is largely known, they became world famous. However, none of them could enjoy the wealth that many less talented musicians can nowadays. For that, only gifted artist could produce true art and hence more accepted art. In conclusion, despite of the gift or talent of the artist, the quality of art depends on who consumes it. In my opinion, and agreeing with Zappa, the best art is the one which is capable to achieve the most number of people, disregarding the efforts of producing it.