The relationship between art, health, and well-being has evolved from a humanistic intuition into an expanding clinical, psychosocial, and neuroscientific research field. The decisive question is no longer whether the arts may contribute to care, but which artistic modality may be more appropriate for which disease, symptom, clinical stage, patient profile, and therapeutic objective. This article proposes an orientative matrix for artistic indication based on a narrative review of secondary literature and recent studies on music therapy, therapeutic singing, dance/movement, visual arts, theatre/drama therapy, expressive writing, poetry therapy, bibliotherapy, and cultural participation. The central thesis is that the arts should not be presented as substitutes for medical, psychological, or rehabilitative treatment, but as complementary interventions able to address cross-cutting dimensions of suffering: anxiety, pain, depression, isolation, cognitive decline, communication, mobility, identity, adherence, meaning-making, and quality of life. The most consistent evidence is found in music therapy for oncology, dementia, prematurity, and neurological rehabilitation; dance for Parkinson disease and depressive symptoms; singing for COPD with limited but promising evidence; visual arts for mental health, trauma, cancer, autism, and cognitive impairment with heterogeneous results; theatre for social skills, mentalization, and child and adolescent mental health; and writing and bibliotherapy for mild depression, grief, coping, and narrative reconstruction. The article concludes that the future of the field requires a form of precision artistic prescription: selecting artistic practice not by fashion or generic preference, but by clinical target, biopsychosocial mechanism, safety, cultural context, professional availability, and measurable outcomes.