Probably about as many as ever, I think. They might have more instant feedback than previously on how popular their works are, but there are plenty of pre-internet creatives who pursued their art and had nothing to show for it even into their deaths. Many of the same self-justifications they used then can still apply now, even with the Internet around giving them feedback.
Look what photography did to painting. I guess it ruined painting for some people. Made it less profitable to a large degree. But people still paint. They paint modern/post modern. They paint in old styles. Even new styles. Have you seen the generation of photo realism that’s out there? Wow. People paint digitally. They paint murals.
Is music going to change? Sure. And people will invent music that AI can’t replicate. Live music, for one.
Great art still attracts. Serving new content is what the algos do best. Music has always had an underground scene. Some make it into the mainstream, or sell out, or don’t.
Same as always
I mean, sure, you can blame this batch on the internet and necessary SEO, but good artists being skipped over is nothing new. There were days before the internet (and even after it’s implementation, but before the ecosystem you are talking about existed) where artists and band with immense talent were lost to time because things didn’t line up just right for them to be successful. Bands played gig after gig, sending their singles to record companies and nothing happened. Just being good at a thing has never been enough. That’s just step 1. Often, the right person has to see you, and that person has to be in the position to elevate you at the time. Maybe that industry guy was just in a bad mood that day and wasn’t enjoying any music and you just got a bad night.
And we have examples of visual artists dying in obscurity only for their art to hit it big after their death. It’s a whole trope in the art world. Van Gogh is probably the most famous. He died penniless having only sold a single painting while alive, and that was to his brother, a frickin art dealer! He even had a guy on the inside and couldn’t make it. Impressionism was a new school, but not exactly empty. As a genre it basically got it’s own museum in the Musée d’Orsay, and still, one of the greatest artists in the genre (and probably all art) couldn’t get a fucking break. Talent is often not enough. Luck and timing have always been more important.
This isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s been a problem for decades. The problem just looks different now, is all.
But here’s the thing. The best artists don’t make art for the attention, they make art for themselves and other people just appreciate it as well. So those artists aren’t going to give up, because it was never about the fame for them.
I imagine this commercial/personal art dichotomy has existed ever since the first time someone paid for art. Like how there’s always been folk music played around campfires in contrast to the operas and orchestras where the local lord’s funding goes.
Also the “people these days aren’t going to want to make art unless they can commercialize it” sentiment.
For as long as there has been art, doomsayers have been complaining that they’ve lived through the last of it to be produced.