2: nobody has artistic talent — there is only work, vision, and risk.
How can you separate vision from talent? Vision is a component of talent. Perhaps tolerance for work and lack of aversion to risk are as well. This seems specious unless you better define what you are talking about.
I agree with the notion that what represents talent can be arbitrary and informed by social convention. If straight lines are all the rage, and we have a group of entirely unschooled four-year-olds produce lines, we will find that some are able to draw straighter lines than others. Does that make them more talented? Not according to any objective truth, but according to arbitrary social norms it does.
Other arbitrary social norms include prizing work ethic over laziness and risk-acceptance over risk-aversion, or having a vision for this or that thing that happens to resonate with the social consciousness of the time.
In other words, it’s not that nobody has talent but, rather, that everybody has talent. Some talents just don’t align with what you or anyone else consider art, or the traits you ascribe to what makes an artist: work, vision, and risk.