Not saying any artist owes people anything, nor does anyone with vast wealth. I will say that it is a show of great character and moral integrity when someone performs unnecessary acts of charity (which are inherently unnecessary, more or less). You could argue that an extremely successful artist releasing an inexpensive print for less-wealthy fans is a form of charity.

I also think being an artist by profession - rather than choosing another career path - sort of seems at odds with being motivated by money/wealth. I understand views on money almost always change as one gains wealth or has opportunities to amass more, but I enjoy artists that can resist this change as it makes them appear to be more genuine artists; i.e. creating art for art's sake. The whole 'art is for the people' thing.

At the same time, I can see why someone like Banksy abandoned the print game; doesn't fit with his MO, and his version of 'art for the people' is doing street pieces and public art, or charity canvases. Almost like he understands the role that prints are supposed to serve in the art world, and realizes that it is no longer applicable to him as an artist, as he seems to prefer spreading messages and social awareness via his art, and does not like it viewed as a commodity (nor the entire concept of an 'art market.')