Art is a tool of expression, an oasis from the grind of daily living, a pressure-release valve, a mirror, and a way to learn things we didn’t know we didn’t know. It takes us out of the moment so our minds can reset. It is especially necessary for the more vulnerable (economically or otherwise) people in society: they need that respite, because everyday life can and often does crush their spirits.
Ironically they are the ones with the least access to art, and that access is steadily decreasing as arts programs are cut from public schools in the neediest neighborhoods, as they age out of youth-centric arts and mentoring programs, as the cost of supplies and lessons increases, as their time is spent working longer and longer hours to not quite make ends meet, as student loans suck up whatever money is left, as art is increasingly locked up behind the paywalls of cable tv and other subscription-only services (most of which require internet access, which the most economically vulnerable of us do not have), and astronomical ticket prices for even the most distant seats at events. The people with the most access to art and artists are the privileged, who arguably need art as a survival tool and instrument of change the least.
Which leads me to question whether art changes the world. It is a tool which can be used that way. But the main people with access to art are those who benefit from things remaining the same. Another large group of people with access are artists, most of whom are too afraid to stick their necks out to force the issue; they know their fellow artists will remain silent to spare their own careers while they are blacklisted for rocking the boat. So it isn’t used that way as much or as powerfully as it could be.