Eee... I KIND of agree, but then again I don't? You don't have to create a solid product to have it pay off. Honestly, you just have to deliver something above film school average and it'll pay off. If you don't believe me, just take a look at what gets distributed from here to other countries.
Yeah, I can't say that he cares more about business than art. But, I'd wager he takes them in equal portions... as, he can't keep making large budget pictures without large budgets, right?
But, yeah, not saying to just throw away the art side! Just, one should probably realize that you aren't going to get large budgets to burn away on creating art and no profit.
It seems to me as though you're saying it's a dichotomy -- art vs. profit. What I'm saying is that it's more of a cause/effect relationship -- awesome art causes profit.
I really have a hard time believing Nolan gave a damn about profit, when he made "Following". I have to think that he just wanted to get noticed. And get noticed, he did. Likewise, I seriously doubt Nolan gave a rat's-ass about profit when he made "Memento". I think he just wanted to make an awesome movie. And make an awesome movie, he did.
That got him to the major leagues, so to say. Big contracts. Big budgets. Now, he's got producers who care about nothing other than profit. He has to answer to those producers, so his movies must fit into certain confines. But, within those confines, I honestly believe (based on what he's putting out) that he cares about nothing other than just making an awesome movie -- and that's all art.
The business-side puts limitations on what you can/cannot do, but those limitations aren't by any means suffucating, and the fact that there are still kick-ass movies being churned-out by Hollywood studios seems proof to me that someone cares more about the art than anything else.
Producers care about profit. Filmmakers care about art. Producers turn a profit by hiring filmmakers that care about the art.