"when I say I art I'm talking music, paining, sculpture, etc. Things that only have aesthetic use, not functional use."

Painting, sculpture, and music have had functional uses since forever.

They had functions such as:

  - reminding people of what happened in the past
  - teaching people moral lessons
  - exulting or placating gods
  - inspiring troops to be braver in combat
  - honoring the dead
  - letting people see things they couldn't see in person
  - training doctors and scientists
  - providing propaganda for rulers or religious organizations
  - inspiring people towards revolution or to right various wrongs

and on, and on, and on.

Only relatively recently has the idea become popular that art should be divorced from function, placed in museums or galleries, and be appreciated merely for its aesthetic value alone.

The classical arts used to be the vectors of vital cultural information (music, poetry and story telling are mnemonic techniques).

We then invented writing which made those media mostly obsolete.

We're still drawn to those disciplines though, because they provided an evolutionary advantage for a long time, making the trait of liking those things quite stable (since pleasure leads to practice, and practice leads to skill).

The same goes for gossiping and superstition.

Also if you look at the kind of art that is actually just appreciated on aesthetics alone now it’s actually pretty derivative. It’s the sort of stuff you’ll find artists painting in bulk to sell in order to support themselves. Most art that gets put up for public consumption has some function beyond mere aesthetic appreciation. It’s usually about something.

Grecian pots are covered in paintings. Greek and roman sculpture was considered one of the highest forms of art by Pliny.

Pliny said this of Peiraikos:

It is well to add an account of the artists who won fame with the brush in painting smaller pictures. Amongst them was Peiraikos. In mastery of his art but few take rank above him, yet by his choice of a path he has perhaps marred his own success, for he followed a humble line, winning however the highest glory that it had to bring. He painted barbers' shops, cobblers' stalls, asses, eatables and similar subjects, earning for himself the name of rhyparographos [painter of dirt/low things]. In these subjects he could give consummate pleasure, selling them for more than other artists received for their large pictures.

Polygnotus? Apollodorus? Zeuxis and Parrhasius?

That's drawing just from Greek history.

Yeah I bet the 300+ year history of Ancient Greece has several examples of famous artists being well paid.

This sounds like an artificial distinction, drawn there only to make the point you want to make. A hammer isn't art, because a hammer is functional, and a decorative handle on it is part of that non-art. A wall isn't art, because a wall is functional, yet a fresco painted on it is art?