The reason the wealthy have such influence over the economics of making and selling art is that the non-wealthy are more or less categorically opposed to paying appropriate prices for art.
The "high art" world, on the other hand, fetishizes the original physical work of art. If an expert painter spends weeks on a painting, then they must sell it for enough money to cover "weeks of an expert's income"; so of course only wealthy people will be able to afford it. How is this price more "appropriate" than the prices that non-wealthy people pay?
The general public pays enough money to pay the artists' salaries, plus the marketing budget and all the other costs. Otherwise Hollywood would go out of business.
I'm not sure how that creates an obligation in the, uhh, 'non-wealthy', that they just don't appreciate art and should be paying those people more by paying more for media.
There's plenty of room in Hollywood budgets to make a movie that doesn't require the leads to make $30M each while underpaying extras. I think you're railing at the wrong "enemy".