I think the process of creating art can make a difference. Where I live, there are several organizations dedicated to bring art to kids who may not have access to it otherwise, all the way from elementary school to high school. These organizations are focused in neighborhoods with higher risk of youth being engaged in troublesome activity, such as gangs, and other violence. Also, one organization provides artists a fellowship, with a small stipend, access to their own private studio space, as well as use of the facility. As part of the artist’s fellowship the must do a service project for part of the community. A lot of times these artists bring in other people as well.

I do believe art can make a change, it’s making a change in a part of town that has a fairly negative connotation in a lot of people’s eyes and I think it is a change that only art could make. This could speak to art fixing issues in society possibly.

I agree that involvement and engagement are key. Maybe more installation or performance pieces or something in that nature, social experiments if you will, need to be done in some artistic manor so that people would be aware of issues. This could also help get away fro the issue of only catering to an elite few, take the art out of the museum.

Also, while art does cater to possibly to an elite few, I believe that the message has to start somewhere, and think that art is a great way to “talk” about social issues because there’s no language barrier. Everyone has an understanding of a piece of art, no matter what language they speak.

I’m a studio art major, also getting my K-12 teaching certificate, so this is a cool discussion to see on here 🙂

I think you’re definitely correct that solving problems definitely requires creative thinking, that can be taught better through creative outlets like art, theater, and music. I wish people didn’t have such a shallow view of the “art world” as you put it. It’s not a parallel universe, because it’s all around us, in this universe.

While Warhol may have been cynical about it, he is correct in a way. I think that’s maybe what lead him to the whole pop art idea, recreating successful business icons, such as the Campbell’s, or successful people, like Marilyn Monroe.

I agree that saving humanity and our planet should be higher on the radar than it seems to be presently. People are ignorant it seems to what is happening all around them, much like some think art is only in museums.

Considering what Warhol said, shouldn’t big, successful companies do more with their power and social responsibility? If we start with influential businesses and have them think differently, more creatively, perhaps, would we start to see a change in how social issues are solved if everyone was involved?

As an artist myself, I’ve wondered for a long time if art really can make a difference, and whether or not I’m selfish for wanting to fulfill myself by making art when I could be out trying to save the world.

I find it very interesting and confusing, however, that you assume that “art” is only viewed by affluent, well-educated people. Art is everywhere. Art is all over TV, music, the internet, and especially social media. Art, digital art, can go viral, which means that art is viewed by people from every country and every walk of life that you could ever imagine. Poor, rich, young, old, male, female, white, black and everything in-between. I wonder if your definition of “art” is only large oil paintings in a gallery in big cities, or outdoor installations in big cities.

I think that when artists, including animators, musicians, etc, take to the internet to showcase their art, those emotions and messages present in their art will reach thousands, possibly millions of people and can most definitely be an important influence. That personally makes me feel better about being an artist who wants to help make the world a better place.