Should Innovation Prioritize the Art or the Artist?

If you’d asked cab drivers to fund the creation of Uber, how many would have signed up? If traditional hotels were asked to bankroll Airbnb, would they have seen the opportunity or treated it as a threat? Today, we face the same question within the music industry: Should innovation prioritise the creators—or the art itself?

At first glance, I can totally appreciate as an artist myself it feels like a betrayal of the people behind the work.  I get it, isn’t the value of art inseparable from its creator? 

History shows that the biggest breakthrough innovations for industries rarely wait for buy-in—because buy-in rarely comes.

Publishing faced this challenge with the launch of Kindle.  Why replace the tactile experience of a printed book? Digital books disrupted traditional pricing, unwound publishers’ gatekeeping role, and rewrote decades of convention. But readers loved the access. And self-publishing platforms gave new writers a chance to share their stories —writers who might never have been noticed otherwise.

Would authors or publishers have funded digital books or tools that bypassed them? You can say with 99% certainty, no. But by prioritising the stories—the output—technology reshaped the way we write, publish, and consume books.

The same challenge faced the art world.  Tools like Photoshop and Procreate, allowed anyone to create digital art. Traditional artists weren't stoked about it.

"Many traditional artists felt that the arrival of digital tools like Photoshop threatened to devalue the 'handcrafted' nature of art. They worried that the ease of creating and editing work on computers might reduce the skill required, leading to art that felt less personal and more commercial."

David Hockney, discussing the impact of technology on art creation in "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters".

"The early resistance to digital art stemmed largely from fears of losing authenticity. The perception was that digital tools made art too easy, eroding the line between skilled craftsmanship and mere manipulation."

"The Digital Turn: How Photoshop Changed the Art World" by Rachel Wells, published in The Journal of Visual Culture.

It felt too fast, too democratised, too far from the traditional canvas. Decades on since the introduction of digital tools, we see they didn't kill art; they expanded it. Today, they allow artists to experiment, reach global audiences, and create revenue streams unimaginable in the analog world. By serving the art itself—making creation faster, cheaper, and more accessible—technology created new opportunities for those willing to adapt.

Innovation can't wait for buy-in — because buy-in rarely comes from those whose status quo is threatened. Instead, technology focuses on the product: the ride, the book, the artwork. It serves the audience, improves the experience, and pushes forward what’s possible.

Musicians are right to feel uneasy. Like cab drivers, publishers, and traditional artists before them, they see a system reshaping the value of their work and changing the rules. But history tells us this: when technology focuses on the art first, it creates a larger canvas for everyone.

It’s not about abandoning artists or ignoring their value—it’s about ensuring that the art continues to grow and evolve. The uncomfortable truth is this: Art deserves innovation, even if it disrupts the systems that once sustained it. And when the art thrives, the artists—those who are willing to adapt—will find their place within that evolution.