People, even those who should have an ostensibly "humanistic" outlook, have largely forgotten the possibility of any activity that is not subordinated to utilitarian concerns. The fact that this question was asked in the first place betrays a certain level of insecurity and even guilt over the way one chooses to spend one's time. It is not asked out of idle curiosity, it is not an honest question that will follow the arguments where they lead, rather it is a question for which an affirmative answer must be manufactured if one is not forthcoming.
Healthier questions include "how can we change the world so there is more time for art?", "why doesn't everyone understand how great art is?", etc.
That latter question may come down to the fact thay most 'art' that is paraded in popular media appears to be not a thing of beauty or introspection or anythin very much except for an overpriced in-joke designed to extract maximum amounts of cash from mysterious sources.
This may well be down to the media looking particularly for such things. It may be that what is lauded as the best of contemporary art is now so esoteric that appreciation of it only comes after years of immersion in it.
Or it might just be that people are philistines, or that most of it is actually shit.
It is silly to ask the question "can art change the world?". But only because the answer is obvious. If the question was "can culture change the world?", the answer would be unequivocally yes. If the question was "can literature change the world" there wouldn't be any doubt about it.
Does the contemporary art world that we see in galleries today change the world? Of course it does. A lot of what is currently mainstream ideas started in the gallery. A lot of complex philosophical ideas have made it to popular culture through avant guarde art.
The CIA itself was sponsoring abstract expressionist artists such as Jackson Pollocks. They thought it was great propaganda for individualism and personal freedom and that it would help fight communism in the world.
People, even those who should have an ostensibly "humanistic" outlook, have largely forgotten the possibility of any activity that is not subordinated to utilitarian concerns. The fact that this question was asked in the first place betrays a certain level of insecurity and even guilt over the way one chooses to spend one's time. It is not asked out of idle curiosity, it is not an honest question that will follow the arguments where they lead, rather it is a question for which an affirmative answer must be manufactured if one is not forthcoming.
Healthier questions include "how can we change the world so there is more time for art?", "why doesn't everyone understand how great art is?", etc.