The idea that art (of all type) is a sort of antechamber one habituates, or medication one swallows, in order to "improve" one's self and/or one's society, is a bourgeoisie, Victorian-era, artifact.
The Victorian notion was that the, then-trebling, early-industrial era's 'great unwashed' could be demographically reduced, or socially improved, by supplementing the workers otherwise squalid existences with calibrated doses of culture.
These ideas have persisted to our day and are now greenhouse-propogated by relational aestheticians and non-profit ( governmental and private) entities who dole out public funds based on 'measurable' audience-outreach and measurable audience-enrichment ... read "improvement".
I've no argument against, nor practical alternative to these hoary ideas and practices - mine is a subjective observation. Nothing more.