Yes there has to be consumption as well as production.
But we need more wealth production than consumption if we are to move forward.. Right now as a society we are spending all the wealth produced by the prior generation. This has been done through out history.
If an object gives people pleasure, that object is a form of wealth. A country which had 300 million painters, but no farmers, would of course be severely economically imbalanced, but not in a fundamentally different way than one which had 300 farmers but no carpenters or doctors.
I'm not quite sure why you imply that luxuries are consumption. Consumption of any type of good or service must be balanced by production. Someone who paints a picture produces it; the owner, to some extent, consumes it (such consumption being measured by the falling amount of future enjoyment the painting will provide in its useful lifetime). How could luxuries be consumed if there was not someone who first produced them? If you don't consider luxuries to be a form of wealth, how would you define wealth?