I was simply qualifying a certain kind of way understanding art and the artist that has been prominent since around the 19th-18th century in Western world, since the beginnings of what is known as Romanticism. So prominent in fact, that people have forgotten art could be understood any differently, as your response seems to show here.

You describe a certain popular story about the "artist" who strives to externalize the ineffable. Its a good story, and it is rightly attributed to many great works and artists. But it far from exhausts what art can be or was at certain times in the past. Art can be entirely communal, or even entirely institutional/political. There have been cultures that wouldn't understand you at all when you say that only certain people are artists, and that they do something that is particular or specialized.

Even further, the idea in general of the "working" artist, one who uses their labor like any other worker, is even younger than that of the romantic artist. Most of the big artists in canon didn't need to "work" like you did, it was either things like patrons, or a lifelong devotion to a church or something.

Art is too big and too full of possibilities to define as easily as you are here.

For my part, I haven't yet seen something like a good "artistic work" from one of the models, but I see the potential in principal.