Not all photography have to be "important" like photo journalism from crisis situations in the world. It's hard to make important art from landscape photography. I know of one that has succeeded though, Edward Burtynsky. But that artistic concept is already occupied by him, so you have to come up with something else
You can make photographic art in many ways.
Some see each photograph as a single piece of art which has no connection to any other picture or context, much like an isolated piece of music. Say a beautiful sunset on a famous location, and the art is that beautiful well-made image you're looking at. Artist statements are things like "enrich people's lives with beauty", and if that seems too shallow you may add things like "remind people about the fragile environment, reconnect people with nature" etc.
Another approach is to have themes, or "projects" where the context of each image becomes important and the art lies not only in each image isolated but as a group. This context can be very specific, or very vague. I prefer projects myself where you can see some sort of "artistic concept" and that images belong together, and that concept as a whole is more important than that every picture in the group is that "great".
I also think originality has value. Traveling around the world to capture the most beautiful places in the most beautiful light with well-established composition techniques may be nice, but I think it's hard to create great art this way as there's so many before you that has done it already, and is doing it.
That is I think that the actual photographs are only carrier of an artistic idea or concept, and the "quality" of the art is much, sometimes more, about that concept than how good the images are as such.