Thanks! You can think about it this way, if images and sounds can influence people negatively (arvertisement, reality shows, news, etc) why can't influence people positively? Changes then happen (or not) by public opinion pressure, consumer choice and sometimes even though vote.

I think that art can be VERY powerful, however I agree with you that this is pretty self-righteous because, all of these concepts have been explored in art that was roughly at least as or more evocative, and most of these are not new takes on subjects that we've seen time and time again and are very aware of. Plus, there's a lot of "not quite takes" here, like the stuff about the environment - in reality, the issue is not "the average person not caring" but capitalism unregulated by governments who don't put restrictions on companies responsible for the majority of pollution. The "blame" in these sorts of drawings is too often misplaced to make it look like it's "every individual doing equal harm".

The cultural drum beat that comes from art is instrumental in changing societal norms and influences. The artists, the poets, the writers have always been the vanguard. The repetition is not accidental or coincidental, it is how it has always worked. The creatives who do not participate have traditionally been coopted into propaganda for the standard, the current regime.

Art can be an instrument for change. Sometimes people and history DOES change based on Music/Literature/Visual Arts' efforts. So I agree maybe this set of illustrations won't be the holy grial to save us all, but they might collectively change something, even if we don't realize it now.

Haha, burned!