They may have been doing a different kind of work.

Yes, the kind of “work” that they were interested in. That they did because they enjoyed, not because they need a roof over their heads or progress in a rat race.

This kind of “work” wasn’t done with a primary goal of getting money. Dare I say, it was a “hobby”.

It is entirely possible to have a job that you enjoy and get paid for. Most of the jobs I've had I enjoyed very much and was paid well for them. And yeah, I needed the money to put a roof over my head, too.

If you hate your job, think about upgrading your job skills to get a job that you would like.

I'm glad that's the case for you. I also am aiming for that.

But we also have to acknowledge that simply is not true for a sizeable portion of the population.

It's also entirely possible to just do things you enjoy and not die, too.

I tried having jobs that I was interested in when I was young, but making it my job made me hate it. So I've spent the last 20 years working in IT because I dislike computers, and always have, except a few years when I was 13-15. There is no loss if working makes me hate something I already dislike--but if it was something I love, and work made me hate it, then it would be tragic.

The point (for me) is its the moment you make it a job, it becomes drudgery. so the "job" part is what I would need to avoid.

A) Have you ever read the E-Myth revisited. In it, deeeeeeeep inside the BS, there is a valuable point about not mistaking the fact of being good at doing a thing with being good at running a business that does that same thing.

B) My point was that it wasn't really work, hence the quotes. The leisure/aristocracy of the past did need to turn it into work. They simply did it because they liked it.

That's a lousy, stupid excuse for the fact that an "efficient" system based on universalizing toil in a social-Darwinian struggle for survival allowed for a leisure class.