People use art for political and social change

The argument

People use art to promote social and political ideas and engage the public or groups of people. Art has a communicative and persuasive nature to drive some form of consensus amongst people, pass agenda, or induce change in society. Most recent examples include meme culture, where the art of correlating images and words with relatable stories can drive social change. Another common example is the use of karekatore and graffiti to deliver political messages. Art can describe the culture and promote social understanding of issues facing communities and the world. It can bring people together and encourage civic engagement. Many artists describe themselves as activists and believe that it is their responsibility to raise awareness and have a social or political impact on the world.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Art does not serve social and political purposes. Art should be separate from politics. Art is important in its own right and for its own sake. It plays a role in changing people's lives by taking them out of their mindless routines and engaging them with truth and beauty. Artists should not mix their art with social and political ideas.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Memes, graffiti and caricature show art used as a vehicle for messages, which establishes that art can communicate rather than that communication is its purpose — the same examples sit equally well with the sibling positions on expression and on function. [Rejecting P2] That some artists describe themselves as activists is a claim about those artists rather than about art, and much of what the question covers — abstraction, ornament, instrumental music — goes unaddressed by a premise built entirely on persuasion.