OP, that is how it goes. And it is the same with most of the photo and art world. Museums did not accept Ansel Adams into their collections until very late in the game when his print quality declined due to his eyesight. Museums are very slow adopters. And they are supposed to be experts with expert eye...
but none of the people in the know at the museums are photogs are artists themselves.
All the 'fine art photography' promoted by Aperture and like venues that are basically glorified, sharp snapshots, while they disregard other genres almost completely.
For example, candid street work is frowned upon a lot nowadays. The PC crowd demands you 'ask permission' before shooting as to not offend anyone. The kids coming up don't know how to shoot museum quality candids. All they use is dummied down gear that won't work well in tough light. Maybe they will snap a few with a telephoto from across the street. But hi-grade, in your face, museum quality candid work is very rare nowadays.
Take these photos from Amsterdam's Red Light District, from my book
De Wallen. (Both Candid)
You know how hard it is to shoot decent candid photos, in terrible light and in a place where photography is outlawed? But candid work is not valued much nowadays, especially if it is from an old guy. You learn to just move on to the next project and don't worry about fame or notoriety. Really, you MUST, if freezing time is in your blood. You know NO other way TO live.
What is popular nowadays?
Photos / art from young people, women, trans, gays, people of color
...and most of them with very little talent
. As a curator myself, I just go by the photo. Much of what I collect is found photography from anonymous sources. So I have no idea what the persons age, gender, sexual orientation or color is.