I know not everyone would agree with this, but I think art is an important part of society and failing to foster it leads to negative outcomes. Despite this, there is not always a "free market" purpose to sponsor artists. I think this has been acknowledged in the past and the gap has been filled by wealthy patronage and state sponsorship for the arts, but these sources of funding can have an outsized affect on the shape of the art it produces. I'm not sure I have a solution to that, outside of perhaps a universal basic income that allows people to pursue creative expression without fear of becoming destitute.

And I'm tempted to say "not everyone with a deviantart profile is contributing positively to the culture" but honestly, who am I to make that judgement?

All that said, yeah, I don't think we need to be reverent of individual artists any more than we should be for anyone else filling a role in society.