Making art for money or making art for art's sake- the question is- which do you prefer to
do? I personally don't think either is the defining measure of how good one's art is. If you feel that a financial goal will give you a reason to work the process, and an impetus to create, well, then go for it. If you feel you can best sing, write, play a piano, draw a landscape etc when you have the unfettered freedom to do so without having to earn your way- then go for it. Being retired gives you either choice.

I don't think the quality of work suffered when folks like Dylan or Hank or for that matter Shakespeare - had a goal of making a living. ( and then some) from their art.
I also don't think the quality of work was diminished when someone like Van Gogh - whether or not he was unsung and unpaid - was just driven to create his art.

Btw I' m not sure if Dr Johnson said that quote in all seriousness. Perhaps he found writing so difficult , that he could only justify his endeavor by being paid. But he may
have meant it as droll wit, not a prescription for the artist. When I think of Matisse at the end if his life , I remember the artist who was so greatly challenged physically - yet he made, with the help of other hands-his celebratory last works - great cut out dancing figures that spoke of all the exuberance of living.

Talent is a gift Al - enjoy it!