It's an interesting example as both of them have phenomenal approval from others and are widely respected, shared and enjoyed for decades and seen as successful

It's an interesting example as both of them have phenomenal approval from others and are widely respected, shared and enjoyed for decades and seen as successful along various lines of criteria. By tautokogical definition, we cannot share mutually recognizable examples of artists who aren't seen and shared :). They may have taken unique path there, but I'm not certain their motivations are as different. If an artist does not want their work to be shared and seen and enjoyed, I'm not even sure they're an "artist" , as opposed to someone who's spending their private time on a whimsy and hobby - They're just tinkering in a vacuum with audience of one. Art, to me, is created to have an impact, an impression, a point do view, or a message, or emotion - all of it predicated on a receiving audience. I think we'll quickly agree that methods of achieving that sharing can be significantly different, and there certainly are other motivations such as money and fame etc, but this perspective of an artist as someone who doesn't care is their art is seen strikes me as depressingly anti social.