Artists — whether poets, painters, or musicians — have enjoyed the role of being “entertainers” who reflect the underlying dynamics of culture. As a flat, two-dimensional print on the walls of a gallery, paintings can stay entertaining without having to provide solutions, nor to engage the audience. The impact traditional artists have over the audience is profound in ways different from socially engaged art: they sober, inspire, and provoke a chosen audience whom they think might like its visual experience. They entertain you. Sometimes, they'll suggest what they think these issues are all about. But rarely will they inspire you to create solutions.

Traditional settings for art are heavily elitified. How many times in your life have you seen impoverished families in an art museum? How about a gallery funded by Stanford? When the influence of art is taken away from the rights of those who can't afford it, it becomes private and elite — to be used as a symbol for power and sophistication rather than a right for all.

By targeting art to specific audiences, artists are turning art into an elitist experience, closed off to the general audience. What a shame that is — known as a universal language, the visual arts has immense potential for getting powerful messages across with one glance of an eye. In a world of growing social and political change, artists are in a special position to express big ideas through their work. Through the internet, communities of people who celebrate these ideas can come together and discuss issues, perhaps to propose solutions. Art that is public has the power to engage communities that are integral to the problem, but not to the gamemakers — that’s why art should be a public right.

When the right of the public to access art is neglected, we also neglect the power of art to create social change. David Harvey, a geologist, describes the right to the city — or, more generally, the right to access public spaces and facilities:

The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual right since this transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of urbanization. The freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights.

For art to provoke social change, it should be made public, in a space where socioeconomic statuses and other ways of segregating populations are neglected, where everyone has an equal chance to access ideas behind public art. In other words, it should be made a common rather than an individual right for us to change ourselves by changing the city.

To create accessible, engaging, but powerful art, I've listed a few factors that should be taken into consideration:

1. Location and cost: not everyone will have the chance to visit art galleries, universities, or museums to study pieces of art. This could be addressed to the intimidation elitist spaces bring to lower-income families, or the cost of these institutions — no matter the reason, successful social art will have to be free and truly public. Posters along restaurant walls on Main Street are public and free. Blog and Medium posts are public and free. The walls of a private high school, by contrast, is free but isn't truly public. Art’s accessibility should not be limited to those who can afford it.
2. Simplicity and Concreteness: much of the general population finds abstract art intimidating and challenging to understand. Because most of the population doesn't own a art degree, public artwork should be easily understood without excessive analyzation by an average Joe. Universal symbols, such as a heart or a sword, should be considered in your artwork. If needed, short phrases are just as powerful as visuals for conveying abstract ideas; keeping art simple and concrete will make it accessible to everyone, regardless of their backgrounds or experience.
3. Techniques and Engagement: effective socially engaged artwork should capture and engage the audience. Portraits, use of bright colour, and provocations are all examples of techniques capturing the audience. This third bullet point ties in with the two points above: how can I encourage the public to discuss my idea? How can I establish the perfect setting? Have I provided my audience with enough information? Be creative with these techniques — no one has all the answers.

At Creative Time and Creative Time Reports, many socially engaged artists are publicized for their work and contributions to improving the public space. Kara Walker, an African-American artist exploring race, gender, and identity in her work, creates room-size tableaux of black cut-out silhouettes. Tatyana Fazlalizadeh is an artist who showcases drawn portraits of catcalled women — along with their messages to catcallers — on the streets of New York City. There are many more like them.

The traditional role artists once played in society can be used for its advantage: what if our role as reflectors were used to provoke global audiences and inspired change? What if art were taken outside of its traditional backdrops and used for the advantage of all?

The bigger question is: how effective can this change be, and what kinds of art are capable of producing this change? The future of art may lie in this very movement in socially engaged art — and it is up to us to change the game.