I think art can have value without being particularly saleable. And with certain kinds of art, the fact that it's popular and lucrative may even be a sign that it's crass and inauthentic. Think Damien Hirst and Andy Warhol.
Then either the art you admire is way out of your price range (I admire Alphonse Mucha, but I don't own any originals!), or the artists you admire are doing a poor job of letting you know that their work is affordable, and would add to your quality of life.
An artwork is not a porsche. Even if I had anywhere near enough money to buy a Kiefer, there would be no room for it in my house, and it would not belong there anyway. I think it is valuable simply that Kiefer's paintings exist, and would be even if museum's weren't willing to pay for them.
That's the wrong question.
In a state of nature, EVERYONE is poor.
Getting out of poverty means one thing: creating something that other people consider to have value, and then exchanging it for cash.
Heinlein had rules for writers: 1) you must write; 2) you must sell what you have written.
This is true for all artists. It's also true for all doctors, accountants, and software engineers.
If an individual artist is poor, he or she either isn't creating anything of value, or isn't finding the market and selling the work.
Period.