I think you will find that neither will be the case. There have always been a vanishingly small number of artists who can make money on art, and that pool (and their value) will not be decreasing.
Much of that pool is doing live performance art, like dancers and musicians, and when Napster and Spotify came to "destroy" the musician by giving everyone infinite reach, what actually happened was that more people succeeded as professionals.
The photograph was also a tremendously good thing for visual artists, bringing in the impressionist era and opening up a whole new field of art in itself.
As to the concept of changing the nature of the work of the "artist" - I can't think of an artist whose work wasn't changed by the technology of the time. From Prussian blue to the electric guitar, artists are usually made great by showing the new possibilities of the new technology of the age.
Much of that pool is doing live performance art, like dancers and musicians, and when Napster and Spotify came to "destroy" the musician by giving everyone infinite reach, what actually happened was that more people succeeded as professionals.
The photograph was also a tremendously good thing for visual artists, bringing in the impressionist era and opening up a whole new field of art in itself.
As to the concept of changing the nature of the work of the "artist" - I can't think of an artist whose work wasn't changed by the technology of the time. From Prussian blue to the electric guitar, artists are usually made great by showing the new possibilities of the new technology of the age.