I think this is a bit of an oversimplification, I see art and technology as more like a dance where it's unclear who's leading who.
E.g., quick high-level examples: Photograph invented led to Impressionism, Andy Warhol's entire oeuvre. Today one of the most talked about artists is Beeple (technology-forward in distribution medium, tooling, and even practice techniques [e.g., "dailies"]).
Music is probably where this is the most profound, take the trajectories of Miles Davis and the Beatles, both started their career with a fledgling recording industry, ended it record in sophisticated studios using instruments and studio techniques that didn't exist a mere 5-10 years earlier.
In electronic music this is even more pronounced, e.g., Native Instrument's Massive synth facilitating dubstep is a nice clean example, but if you've followed electronic music overall the connection is obvious. E.g., what dates most pre-2000s era music is that today musicians use DAWs whereas before it was less powerful hardware devices that had a more specific sound (and other arrangement and composition limitations).
This actually feeds into one of the points you made: Being successful at art (or anything really) has a lot to do with how excited and motivated you are to pursue it. It's easier to be excited if you feel like you're exploring new territory, ripe with untapped potential, and that's historically often been unlocked by technology. Whereas if you keep comparing your solos to John Coltrane when you're learning the saxophone, that's going to be demoralizing and you'll feel like you'll never get there so why bother trying. There's also diminishing returns, e.g., that music territory has been so thoroughly explored now, so the ROI on developing that specific skill (playing jazz at that level) has been reduced, because so much of that artistic space has already been explored.
If you tie that all back to the art itself, I'd assume today that we already have saxophone soloist who are more technically skilled than John Coltrane, e.g., the music theory is better understood, and we've had decades of iteration to improve practice techniques (there are tons of books and studies on this subject now). But you can't replicate the sheer excitement that those musicians must have felt as they unlocked new music possibilities by iterating on music theory (a form of technology), and recording as a new medium to share and learn from.
To be clear, most of what you've said I'd agree with, but I'd add more nuance like: Leverage technology to make the act of creation as exciting for you as possible, but the main goal of the excitement is to keep yourself practicing and improving. And also look for untapped potential (e.g., a specific example that's relevant today, I think GPU-based rendering is still under-explored today Beeple has been able to leverage this in his art, but I think the big barrier of entry [probably ~$10,000+ for hardware/software over the course of a career] means there's untapped potential there.
E.g., Daft Punk on well-tread territory due to the accessibility of technology https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/9277-the-yea...:
> Technology has made music accessible in a philosophically interesting way, which is great. But on the other hand, when everybody has the ability to make magic, it's like there's no more magic—if the audience can just do it themselves, why are they going to bother?