user4928: A painter whose painting hangs in a public museum, a writer that has their works checked out of the library frequently,  a singer with melodies that calm the mind, and a comedian that gets people laughing are some cases I have in mind. 
A harder case would be a rapper. Say their song offends a few people, but doesn't actually hurt anyone. Further let's say that their target audience gets some value from their craft, be it enjoyment, being able to relax, or some other beneficial state. Get creative, feel free to discuss cases not listed here. I only list them to help clarify what I am asking. 
However impermanent and fleeting the benefit they provide to others is, when they provide it to thosands or millions of people how does it end up stacking out?
We can also consider the two cases of the artist being, or not being, a Buddhist. 

user254: 
when they provide it to thosands or millions of people how does it end up stacking out?

I think that an artist might get rich: which, is not necessarily the same as "accumulating positive merit".
If you're asking about artists' livelihood, you might like to read quotes from the suttas about Right Livelihood.

Further let's say that their target audience gets some value from their craft, be it enjoyment, being able to relax, or some other beneficial state

I think that Buddhism might describe music and so on as "conditioned" (you can only hear it in certain conditions and you are unable to listen to it permanently); and, recommend that people seek or learn (instead) an "unconditioned" enjoyment and relaxation.
From that point of view, if you give someone music to help them relax, then they might find it pleasant (relaxing) albeit temporary, however maybe it doesn't for example help to make them a better person.
It might depend on the subject, too, for example books which spread Dhamma might be seen as more beneficial than books which don't.
And as Robin's answer said it might depend on the artist's intent.

user715: According to the Talaputra Sutta, one time an actor approached the Buddha and asked him if he would go to heaven with the devas because he made people happy and forget their worries.
The Buddha tried to dodge answering, but at the actor's insistence, he had to tell him that he'd probably go to hell or the animal realms.
See also:

This question: Will actors really go to hell?
My answer to Are actions in computer games bad for karma?


user143: The one thing that really jumps out at me is intention. 
About 6% of the world's population is Buddhist and might be familiar with the concepts explained in Ryan and Buddho's answers. Not all Buddhists would though, due to differences in teachings, understandings, and traditions.
So an overwhelming majority of the world's population (94% or more) may be unfamiliar with this idea of art forms as objects of desire and clinging. So with this, I think we have to allow that the majority of artists, musicians, writers of fiction books, etc. don't have an understanding that their works potentially create suffering. There is no bad intent. 
If a person (Buddhist or otherwise) truly understands the potential for their art to create desire, clinging, and rebirth into samsara, and continues to do so for the purpose of malice; that's a whole different thing. But also a very odd hypothetical situation; likely not the norm. :)
I don't think you can paint this with a broad brush due to the relatively small number of people who potentially have the understanding of art as a source of suffering. For most of the world, art including fine art, music, books, etc. is considered a source of beauty and is crafted with love and passion; which is also not understood to tie one to samsara. It's hard to imagine that people with pure intentions would receive a significant demerit; but also hard to imagine they would receive merit. 
Edit 
I don't believe this view conflicts with the Talaputa Sutta in that, if a person is an artist and full of passion, they aren't leaving samsara anytime soon. There will be more rebirths and certainly some of those rebirths would be in hell realms. I don't understand the Talaputa Sutta to be any sort of a god like judgement or condemnation to a hell realm as a direct punishment for passion in art forms. That would be a theistic view, in my understanding.

4928: <p>A painter whose painting hangs in a public museum, a writer that has their works checked out of the library frequently,  a singer with melodies that calm the mind, and a comedian that gets people laughing are some cases I have in mind. </p>

<p>A harder case would be a rapper. Say their song offends a few people, but doesn't actually hurt anyone. Further let's say that their target audience gets some value from their craft, be it enjoyment, being able to relax, or some other beneficial state. Get creative, feel free to discuss cases not listed here. I only list them to help clarify what I am asking. </p>

<p>However impermanent and fleeting the benefit they provide to others is, when they provide it to thosands or millions of people how does it end up stacking out?</p>

<p>We can also consider the two cases of the artist being, or not being, a Buddhist. </p>
 254: <blockquote>
  <p>when they provide it to thosands or millions of people how does it end up stacking out?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think that an artist might get <em>rich</em>: which, is not necessarily the same as "accumulating positive merit".</p>

<p>If you're asking about artists' livelihood, you might like to read quotes from the suttas <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/" rel="nofollow">about Right Livelihood</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Further let's say that their target audience gets some value from their craft, be it enjoyment, being able to relax, or some other beneficial state</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think that Buddhism might describe music and so on as "conditioned" (you can only hear it in certain conditions and you are unable to listen to it permanently); and, recommend that people seek or learn (instead) an "unconditioned" enjoyment and relaxation.</p>

<p>From that point of view, if you give someone music to help them relax, then they might find it pleasant (relaxing) albeit temporary, however maybe it doesn't for example help to make them a better person.</p>

<p>It might depend on the subject, too, for example books which spread Dhamma might be seen as more beneficial than books which don't.</p>

<p>And as Robin's answer said it might depend on the artist's intent.</p>
 715: <p>According to the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Talaputra Sutta</a>, one time an actor approached the Buddha and asked him if he would go to heaven with the devas because he made people happy and forget their worries.
The Buddha tried to dodge answering, but at the actor's insistence, he had to tell him that he'd probably go to hell or the animal realms.</p>

<p>See also:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>This question: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/7663/will-actors-really-go-to-hell">Will actors really go to hell?</a></p></li>
<li><p>My answer to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10250/715">Are actions in computer games bad for karma?</a></p></li>
</ul>
 143: <p>The one thing that really jumps out at me is <strong>intention</strong>. </p>

<p>About 6% of the world's population is Buddhist and might be familiar with the concepts explained in Ryan and Buddho's answers. Not all Buddhists would though, due to differences in teachings, understandings, and traditions.</p>

<p>So an overwhelming majority of the world's population (94% or more) may be unfamiliar with this idea of art forms as objects of desire and clinging. So with this, I think we have to allow that the majority of artists, musicians, writers of fiction books, etc. don't have an understanding that their works potentially create suffering. There is no bad intent. </p>

<p>If a person (Buddhist or otherwise) truly understands the potential for their art to create desire, clinging, and rebirth into samsara, and continues to do so for the purpose of malice; that's a whole different thing. But also a very odd hypothetical situation; likely not the norm. :)</p>

<p>I don't think you can paint this with a broad brush due to the relatively small number of people who potentially have the understanding of art as a source of suffering. For most of the world, art including fine art, music, books, etc. is considered a source of beauty and is crafted with love and passion; which is also not understood to tie one to samsara. It's hard to imagine that people with pure intentions would receive a significant demerit; but also hard to imagine they would receive merit. </p>

<p><strong>Edit</strong> </p>

<p>I don't believe this view conflicts with the Talaputa Sutta in that, if a person is an artist and full of passion, they aren't leaving samsara anytime soon. There will be more rebirths and certainly some of those rebirths would be in hell realms. I don't understand the Talaputa Sutta to be any sort of a god like judgement or condemnation to a hell realm as a direct punishment for passion in art forms. That would be a theistic view, in my understanding.</p>
