Does anyone have any well reasoned ideas on why conservatives seem to perform so poorly in the arts? I'm looking for resources or explanations, not low effort polemics. Music, online content, TV...
Does anyone have any well reasoned ideas on why conservatives seem to perform so poorly in the arts? I'm looking for resources or explanations, not low effort polemics.
Music, online content, TV shows, movies; consistently conservative (and Christian) media is of far lower quality the majority of the time. Why aren't they better at this?
Conservatives (and Christians), to say the least, have a disproportionate share of the wealth and power of our society. One would expect that they'd have a stronger impact on culture and the arts than they do.
I think meaningful art demands an emotional and analytical investment that runs antithesis to modern conservatism. Enjoying the plight of characters we can't directly relate to on a 1-for-1 basis...
Exemplary
I think meaningful art demands an emotional and analytical investment that runs antithesis to modern conservatism.
Enjoying the plight of characters we can't directly relate to on a 1-for-1 basis requires us to exercise our empathy and emotional intelligence. Thinking metaphorically, searching a text or song or poem for a deeper contextual meaning, doesn't interest them unless it's for conspiratorial thinking. Nuance, questions of morality, questions of identity, existentialism... this sort of thinking is deliberately tamped down by conservative ideology as a means to preserve itself.
We use the arts to explore ideas and since the dawn of time, the right-wing authoritarians of history have done what they could to stifle the arts. Exploring the idea space around different concepts like society or life itself is seen as, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, dangerous. The simple answer, in a reductive sense, is that if someone conservative has the ability to analyze the world around them with a nuanced, insightful, emotionally resonant flexibility leveraged to create meaningful art, they wouldn't be conservative. Not as a dig at conservatives (here, anyway) but as a truth that people who can't or won't value art in a meaningful sense have difficulty creating meaningful art.
I personally know conservatives that love poetry, music, and storytelling. Who will study Scripture, sing and analyze hymns, and dig deep into moral philosophy to try to understand how they should...
Thinking metaphorically, searching a text or song or poem for a deeper contextual meaning, doesn't interest them unless it's for conspiratorial thinking. Nuance, questions of morality, questions of identity, existentialism... this sort of thinking is deliberately tamped down by conservative ideology as a means to preserve itself.
I personally know conservatives that love poetry, music, and storytelling. Who will study Scripture, sing and analyze hymns, and dig deep into moral philosophy to try to understand how they should live. Not all conservatives are conspiracy theorists or Qanon cultists; I'd wager a large percentage of them are not.
Nonetheless, conservative art deeply sucks and it isn't obvious why.
Ah I wanted to get into this in my first comment but was worried about ranting or getting sidetracked. I think religion is the closest thing to creative expression through a conservative lens. It...
Exemplary
Ah I wanted to get into this in my first comment but was worried about ranting or getting sidetracked.
I think religion is the closest thing to creative expression through a conservative lens. It can appeal to a need to explore hidden meaning or external influence. It embodies symbolism. But the key difference between religious tradition and a more general artistic expression is its inherent flattening of nuance. Christianity is an obvious example. All good things flow from God and his followers, all bad things from the devil or God's wayward children. Any confusion, any morally gray conundrums or differences in perspective are derived from God testing us, or the Devil tempting us. Any positive aspect of human existence is merely an expression of God's goodness.
For example, love for a spouse or child, opportunity, luck, safety, perseverance, bravery. All of these are vastly different emotional ideas, and diverse aspects of our lives. But since they have positive connotations, they are all attributed to the same homogenous source, God's light, His positive influence. It's tough to feel encouraged to explore each one conceptually, to dive into what each one means when they're all aspects of the same thing. Why be curious when you're already familiar with God's embrace? It's a deference to simplicity. It, by design, lacks depth in exchange for easy-to-digest rhetoric. There's comfort and meaning in that, but leads to a sort of "with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" philosophy. The same is true for negative concepts. Things that are different, unfamiliar, gross, or weird. Corruption, cruelty, argument, physical and mental suffering. All can be flattened down into "evil" concepts. Things that must be defeated by good. Things that must be rejected and unexamined for your own sanctity.
Polytheistic religions expand somewhat, offering different deities to represent different concepts in daily life. But in the same way, encourages thought to coalesce around singular concepts, lone attributions. Hunting and pursuit to Artemis, destruction to Sheva. An ocean of meaning and intricacy refined to a singular notional point. It forces compartmentalization. It asks the world to fit into categories that seldom overlap.
To bring this all back, religious arts share many similarities with other forms of expression but ultimately act as a reinforcement of existing rhetorical boundaries, instead of testing or transforming our understanding. It forces our experiences through a limited lens, so as a result, religious art is by definition limited. It runs counter to the human need to be transformative and exploratory. Its messages aren't about examining new ideas, but bringing everything back to the old ones. The only ideas, old as time itself so they purport.
I don't want to imply that conservatives are somehow not human, and can't appreciate music, art, or poetry the way real humans can. I think there's a philosophical difference where the rhetoric behind this expression lies. People are inclined to enjoy rhythm and melody, to express themselves and celebrate ideas through painting or storytelling. But I think "good" art is derived from a need to share one's unique perspective, and religious art is derived from a need to echo a singular, shared perspective. It doesn't engage the mind of observers, it doesn't challenge what they know. It isn't fundamentally intriguing as a byproduct of what it represents, a shared and celebrated uniformity.
When I was Christian, I always tried to think about how God was communicating to me through things that happened in my life. What I could do to exemplify good Christian values, how I could better serve Him in my day-to-day, and in return what love God provided and how it was expressed. I had this drive to categorize my life in adherence to how it was preached to me. Existentialism and philosophy were opportunities to find a "Christian destination" in any conceptual challenge. A definitive solution that fit with my worldview, my understanding in which all of the systems of the universe operated, and my tools to break these concepts down were extensions of my faith. Severely limited, lacking perspective, inherently reductive. I had to find myself, learn from countless others, and engage in perspectives that made me uncomfortable to reach the point I'm at today. To be able to even say these words, think these thoughts.
As someone raised in a highly conservative Christian home, all of this really lines up. I grew up watching my dad struggle to express himself without acknowledging the actual pain, confusion, and...
As someone raised in a highly conservative Christian home, all of this really lines up. I grew up watching my dad struggle to express himself without acknowledging the actual pain, confusion, and loneliness of the human condition. Without acknowledging all the questions and mystery at the heart of so much great art.
It wasn't that he wasn't lonely or that he didn't experience complex, conflicting emotions about the world, it's that he would never allow himself to go to a place where those things were acknowledged because to acknowledge those concepts conflicted with the unbending faith required by the christian world view, that the Bible and prayer contained all the answers one needed and that being "saved" was suppose to be a transformative process that changed you fundementally into a person who didn't experience things like despair.
For example, he would try to write music without using any kind of minor chords because minor chords can add an element of melancholy, which was something he "shouldn't" feel as a born again christian, things like melancholy, depression, longing etc. were all emotions that ungodly people experienced because of the moral confusion created by their unbelief.
Now that I type it out I realize this is probably one of the core parts of why I grew to really dislike the abrahamic philosophies themselves. The way in which the religions stunt people's natural humanity, their ability to connect and share in a genuine way, and their ability to confront reality in a healthy way, is just so profoundly wrong to me. It reveals the deceit upon which all of it is based.
Oh goodness, that music example is the epitome of existential horror. For such a fundamental aspect of the human experience to be so terrifying to a person as to lose their identity if they were...
Oh goodness, that music example is the epitome of existential horror. For such a fundamental aspect of the human experience to be so terrifying to a person as to lose their identity if they were to acknowledge it.
Dostoevsky once wrote: If God did not exist, everything would be permitted ; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse.
I similarly grew up in a conservative household in a very conservative region of the US, and left it behind in my 20s. Frustratingly, even though I've been a self described atheist for ~15 years I...
A definitive solution that fit with my worldview, my understanding in which all of the systems of the universe operated, and my tools to break these concepts down were extensions of my faith. Severely limited, lacking perspective, inherently reductive.
I similarly grew up in a conservative household in a very conservative region of the US, and left it behind in my 20s. Frustratingly, even though I've been a self described atheist for ~15 years I still catch myself taking mental shortcuts like you describe in the quote above.
"An ocean of meaning and intricacy refined to a singular notional point." I don't think that religion (monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, or polytheism/paganism) was quite that binary or monolithic in...
"An ocean of meaning and intricacy refined to a singular notional point."
I don't think that religion (monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, or polytheism/paganism) was quite that binary or monolithic in general in the past though.
To me, it feels pretty reductionist to handwave away thousands of years of religious history like that while ignoring the esoteric Christianity/Judaism/Islamic movements and elements that shaped exoteric practices and thought within those religions that lead to some of the great art of the time and places that we can still enjoy and look at today.
Polytheism and paganism also aren't (and still isn't) as simple as "Artemis = hunt", or "Shiva= destruction" either. These people were using these personified and anthropomorphic concepts to explain complex cosmological views.
Those pagan myths and legends were likely tied in some form of animism, and sometimes with very local expressions of gods/goddesses that had thier own temples or cults that did thier own thing when it came to the Greco-Roman pantheon at least.
The past was probably a lot more patchwork when it came to religious expression than we probably usually think of.
Does that apply to modern Christianity in the US? I dunno, I think it's probably more diverse than we think, but also the most annoying and uncreative people in Evangelical spaces seem to want to push thier brand/content the most.
This line prompted me to think if the split between conservative, leftist, liberal, and other art communities is another piece of fallout from the invention of photography. It's the difference...
I think "good" art is derived from a need to share one's unique perspective, and religious art is derived from a need to echo a singular, shared perspective.
This line prompted me to think if the split between conservative, leftist, liberal, and other art communities is another piece of fallout from the invention of photography. It's the difference between the technical finesse of "art is supposed to be beautiful" and the endless semantic wars over what constitutes "true art" in non-conservative circles.
In terms of narrative art, it's a split between who can best retell well-known stories and those who attempt to say something unique. In a world where media is no longer ephemeral, why would I want to see a conservative recreation when I can enjoy the original?
I think a lot of it comes down to the general public perception that things are better now than they were in the past. Most stories focus around some major change in the status quo, which usually...
I think a lot of it comes down to the general public perception that things are better now than they were in the past. Most stories focus around some major change in the status quo, which usually aligns better with progressive ideas. It's a lot harder to map "we should return everything exactly to the way it was" ideologically onto a satisfying story. Narratives thrive on conflict and change, which doesn't mesh well with tradition. On the other hand, if the prevailing mood was that things are worse nowadays, we might see more stories about adhering to traditional values, but historically that hasn't been been as popular a feeling.
I've seen a similar argument as to why conservative "humour" is usually not funny at all. To be able to subvert expectations, mock existing hierarchies, compose and contrast ideas, you can't...
I've seen a similar argument as to why conservative "humour" is usually not funny at all. To be able to subvert expectations, mock existing hierarchies, compose and contrast ideas, you can't maintain a conservative world-view that expects these things to remain the same or stable.
It seems like there's endless storytelling you could do about returning to a better time before the degeneracy of modern society. There's been tons of incredible dystopian content that could be...
It seems like there's endless storytelling you could do about returning to a better time before the degeneracy of modern society. There's been tons of incredible dystopian content that could be spreading an eco-fasc message with minor tweaks (e.g., reject modernity, embrace tradition).
And this doesn't seem to account for why they suck at all art. What about their music? What about comedy? Why does every cultural product they produce suck so goddamn much? It's more than bad storytelling; the overall quality is lower by every measure.
That's true! What I said is probably just one factor of many. @dsh made a good point above that it's hard to make fun of hierarchies and contrast ideas when the conservative worldview believes we...
That's true! What I said is probably just one factor of many. @dsh made a good point above that it's hard to make fun of hierarchies and contrast ideas when the conservative worldview believes we should live under rigid hierarchy, which I think explains a bit more generally why it all seems to suck.
Edit: Also, the viewpoint that conservative art is created from is basically the same everywhere so it all comes out pretty same-y. There's very little diversity of opinion, which is just uninteresting.
This tangentially reminds me of Komar & Melamid's painting by numbers project. The highest-polling options were consistently predominantly blue landscapes no matter which culture was surveyed. The...
the viewpoint that conservative art is created from is basically the same everywhere so it all comes out pretty same-y. There's very little diversity of opinion, which is just uninteresting.
This tangentially reminds me of Komar & Melamid's painting by numbers project. The highest-polling options were consistently predominantly blue landscapes no matter which culture was surveyed. The least-desirable painting opinions had distinctive variations between nations.
Happy conservative families politics are all alike; each miserable change-making movement is unique.
I think nearly all art often requires boundary pushing and challenging the status quo to create something beyond what has been done before. I also think that plenty of conservative people make...
I think nearly all art often requires boundary pushing and challenging the status quo to create something beyond what has been done before.
I also think that plenty of conservative people make successful art, they just write what they think people will like rather than what they necessarily believe. That isn't limited to conservatism but there's plenty of cognitive dissonance amongst wealthy/successful actors, musicians, writers, directors (or perhaps they're fully happy and have no dissonance at all) between what values they actually believe and what roles they take or songs they sing.
Because creating art is secondary to fulfilling an agenda. Take something like Brooklyn 99 for example; Captain Holt being gay may be an integral part of the story but making a show about a gay...
Because creating art is secondary to fulfilling an agenda. Take something like Brooklyn 99 for example; Captain Holt being gay may be an integral part of the story but making a show about a gay police captain was not the goal. And if you turn Kevin into Kayla the true primary goal is still mostly accomplished, creating a funny cop show. With 99.9%, oh fuck it, 100% of conservative entertainment, the primary goal is furthering a conservative agenda. And when you remove the conservative agenda you're left with a husk of a show, and for those who don't care about "owning the libs", the dried up husk is all you'll ever notice.
We see tons of incredible art that is primarily furthering a left-wing critique of society. I'd almost be willing to state that the best art often exists as a leftist political critique. From...
Because creating art is secondary to fulfilling an agenda.
We see tons of incredible art that is primarily furthering a left-wing critique of society. I'd almost be willing to state that the best art often exists as a leftist political critique. From environmentalist art and films, to anti-war films, to punk, to the general progressive boundary pushing across the board (LGBTQ inclusivity early on, anti-racist films, etc.) It's everywhere, even in art you don't expect it: District 9's critique of South African apartheid, Elysium's heavy handed critique of inequality, and I have so much more but the list could go on indefinitely.
The left has Rage Against the Machine, the right, Kid Rock. Elysium was honestly kinda mid, but I couldn't fathom a movie with it's production quality having a conservative message.
If your art is primarily about making a statement, if it "has an agenda" it often is better than it would otherwise be.
I would argue that making a statement (God is great and God is powerful) and furthering an agenda (I wanted to find a leftist example for balance but I couldn't think of any lol) are two separate...
I would argue that making a statement (God is great and God is powerful) and furthering an agenda (I wanted to find a leftist example for balance but I couldn't think of any lol) are two separate things.
I can’t remember which video/article I saw it in exactly, but one person put it that conservative media is judged by conservatives not by how good it is, but by how conservative it is—how well it...
I can’t remember which video/article I saw it in exactly, but one person put it that conservative media is judged by conservatives not by how good it is, but by how conservative it is—how well it hits the target. God’s Not Dead doesn’t need to be good for 50,000 youth groups to screen it—it doesn’t explain why creators ignore or butcher the genuinely stirring source material in favor of hallmark movies with Kevin Sorbo, but it did make a lot of sense.
Like their humor or not, Some More News covered this topic very well. Going through their sources is also a fantastic option to learn more. Personally, I'd say its simply because "Scrappy underdog...
Like their humor or not, Some More News covered this topic very well.
Personally, I'd say its simply because "Scrappy underdog beats The Man" is a better story than "The Man successfully subjugates underdog again." And what are jokes but very short form fiction.
And they spent that budget slashing arts programs in schools, and undercutting any attempt to get liveable (let alone good) wages for those who make it through anyway. It seems like the natural...
Conservatives (and Christians), to say the least, have a disproportionate share of the wealth and power of our society. One would expect that they'd have a stronger impact on culture and the arts than they do.
And they spent that budget slashing arts programs in schools, and undercutting any attempt to get liveable (let alone good) wages for those who make it through anyway. It seems like the natural outcome for not caring about art to be unable to resonate with what made the best art so memorable. As a corollary: Art is an inherently risky venture and even the successes operate on thin margins. There won't be as much investment in the arts as a result from those who care about their money, and the few investments are more likely to be micro-managed on account of that being how investors in general tend to work.
Which is another factor that just doesn't work in the arts: there are many sectors where you can copy a business scheme and get somewhat similar results. You can't just make a good piece of art by superficially enjoying a certain show and trying to make your own show based on what you think you liked about it. That's why there are people who's entire careers revolve around analyzing and critiquing art: it's hard to find what really worked, who made it work (or held it back), and then communicate that to others. And even if you can, there may have been some unsung talent underneath the writing or art direction that lead that work in the right path.
Kind of a stream of conscious, and I could probably go on for paragraphs more, but I think you understand the general idea. They didn't invest in talent or understanding, so it makes sense they lack quality and subtlety. Your first goal as a piece of entertainment is the engage the audience, but many of the pieces of low quality conservative media that comes to mind seems to focus on preaching its values first. This isn't limited to conservative media (Velma 2023 immediately comes to mind as an example on the opposite part of the spectrum), but liberal/bipartisan media has more shots to take.
To try and prompt a more poignant question: what is a piece of work that is appreciated by conservatives? There aren't really a lot of pieces of animation that make me think "this is a conservative cartoon" to begin with. That would be the first step to determine what is "good" and then derive how other works failed to live up to those factors. If we truly can't find one, that's probably the first place to start.
Are these separate categories or one? because the words seem to be used interchangeably throughout the discussion. American media is rife with Christian themes. The extremely successful 1950s...
Conservatives (and Christians)
Are these separate categories or one? because the words seem to be used interchangeably throughout the discussion.
2000s - "Jesus, Take The Wheel" VeggieTales, The Passion of the Christ made more than half a billion USD worldwide.
2010s - Chance the Rapper's performance at the Grammys from the year he won Best Rap Album. A certain red hat wearing shoe designer had a song chart across Billboard's hot 100, rap, gospel, and christian charts.
There's a flavor of "conservative Christian" media, such as this Snow White film I suspect, where I don't think there is an intent of broad appeal. It's in-group reinforcement, which is why something can be soundly panned by secular critics yet well rated by Christian critics--and still profitable. It's preaching to the choir whereas I, not the target audience, interpret it as proselytizing. Is it a recent phenomenon or did I only become aware of it because of increased distribution and marketing?
C. S. Lewis is still read, well-regarded, and perhaps best known for The Chronicles of Narnia series. The Disney adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,
plot pointin which the lion dies and is resurrected, received "two thumbs up" and raked in ~$745 million. It is the biggest film the production company Walden Media, owned by billionaire conservative Christian Philip Anschutz, has been involved in.
I'm sure there are plenty of artists who hold some conservative views and still make good art, but getting together a group of specifically conservative artists to make a film serving an explicit...
I'm sure there are plenty of artists who hold some conservative views and still make good art, but getting together a group of specifically conservative artists to make a film serving an explicit conservative ideological goal is both severely limiting your talent pool and subordinating the art to the ideology, both things that hurt the quality of the product.
People have often pointed out that the message of Pixar's The Incredibles is a warning against government regulation, so that at least confirms you can make a good movie with a conservative message if you can sneak that message past the mostly liberal talent pool making it.
Besides the other answers here, I think a lot of it just comes down to budget and resources. In general, the arts and entertainment industries are pretty progressive. And in general, the best and...
Besides the other answers here, I think a lot of it just comes down to budget and resources. In general, the arts and entertainment industries are pretty progressive. And in general, the best and brightest from those industries wouldn't touch these Conservative projects with a 10 foot pole. The people making these Conservative entertainment projects by and large aren't very talented. I don't think there's much more to it than that. Budget and talent aren't everything, but they can do a hell of a lot to elevate any creative project.
I guess I'm confused on why budget and resources are a problem for conservative art when conservatives have a disproportionate amount of wealth in society. Why aren't these industries more...
I guess I'm confused on why budget and resources are a problem for conservative art when conservatives have a disproportionate amount of wealth in society. Why aren't these industries more conservative? Why won't artists touch conservative projects with a 10-foot pole. Why aren't conservative artists talented?
Just because Conservatives hold a lot of money and power overall, doesn't mean that that power is evenly distributed across all of society. To continue to speak in very broad generalities, I'd say...
Just because Conservatives hold a lot of money and power overall, doesn't mean that that power is evenly distributed across all of society. To continue to speak in very broad generalities, I'd say that the arts attract progressive individuals by their nature. Creative work requires intellectual flexibility, open-mindedness, and a curiosity about other people's viewpoints. Altogether basically the opposite of Conservatism.
Also, I didn't say that Conservative artists are not talented. I said that the best talent isn't attracted to these Conservative-first entertainment products. Regardless of anyone's personal political views, these projects are lower-budget, offer little creative freedom and—at best—don't further people's careers outside of the Conservative media-verse. At worst, tying your name to one of these projects can actively hurt your career prospects in the "mainstream media."
Oh I see. When you say their power isn't evenly distributed across society, would you say that the right has less cultural power than the left? And if so, do you think that is unique to our modern...
Oh I see.
When you say their power isn't evenly distributed across society, would you say that the right has less cultural power than the left? And if so, do you think that is unique to our modern context or something related to the nature of reactionary politics in general?
We're kind of speaking too broadly to have all to much meaning. Specifically, I'm saying that the people in the Western, for-profit, mass-media industries tend to lean left for the reasons...
We're kind of speaking too broadly to have all to much meaning. Specifically, I'm saying that the people in the Western, for-profit, mass-media industries tend to lean left for the reasons mentioned above. I'd also say that the people working in the fine arts world (artists, galleries, museums) tend to lean left for the same reasons. It's a matter of self-selection. Does this mean that the Right has "less cultural power?" Really hard to say, imo. There's a lot more to "culture" than the industries/milieus I was talking about.
It's a really interesting question. I don't know the answer (and I'm not sure how one could find it out). I think a plausible explanation is this: conservatives have disproportionate economic and...
It's a really interesting question. I don't know the answer (and I'm not sure how one could find it out).
I think a plausible explanation is this: conservatives have disproportionate economic and political power because economic and political structures favour them. Cultural power is harder to "game": art has to resonate to be popular, and conservative ideas do not resonate with the public as a whole. That's not to say that there aren't lots of conservatives in the art world who are good at their jobs, there are (Kelsey Grammer, JD Vance, etc). But art made from a conservative perspective is not economically viable and so the only people who make it aren't very good at it.
I don't think it's related to any fundamental relationship between conservatism and art; it might just be a modern America thing. On the contrary, bemoaning modernity and romanticizing a...
I don't think it's related to any fundamental relationship between conservatism and art; it might just be a modern America thing. On the contrary, bemoaning modernity and romanticizing a simpler/older time has led to many great pieces of art, and that's fundamentally a very conservative perspective. I would say there's many small-c conservatives in the arts that are not very vocal about their views or are checked out of modern American politics for how off the rails it's gotten.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say all conservatives-leaning media sucks but I think it has to fall back to the idea that conservatism, by definition, is a selfish ideology that seeks to keep things...
I wouldn’t go so far as to say all conservatives-leaning media sucks but I think it has to fall back to the idea that conservatism, by definition, is a selfish ideology that seeks to keep things as they are from an individual viewpoint. Just look at MAGA - whose version of America was great? Surely, they don’t all have the exact same view of what time period was best in America. The entire presupposition of conservatism is a combination of two parts - what do I want to conserve and who do I want included in those benefits?
So, what does that have to do with the question? Most art and media is an effort of multiple people with multiple viewpoints. There is no singular vision of the world for others who believe that diversity, spectrums, and change are fundamentals. It takes hundreds of people sometimes to make media and they all have to work together so the mood has to be very collaborative and supportive. Even with individual art, it takes multiple people to put that out into the world. One person may be able to make it but, without others (barring truly exceptional art), that art goes nowhere.
Any group whose existence predicates exclusion of people will shrink in size. Smaller groups will have a hard time making relatable art because, unless people share your exact, specific viewpoint, you’re not speaking to them.
I would say we don't really consider things to be overtly "conservative" when they are things we already accept. There are some really good Christmas songs, but a Chriatmas song isn't necessarily...
I would say we don't really consider things to be overtly "conservative" when they are things we already accept. There are some really good Christmas songs, but a Chriatmas song isn't necessarily conservative even though conservatives in my country take Christmas very seriously.
A lot of people are "conservative" because they place value on tradition, but the things that are tradition don't need to be overtly political, they are already part of the status quo are are just accepted as normal. When you write a love song about heteronormative romance where the man makes the first move, that's not a conservative love song, that's just a love song.
This isn't a satisfying answer for me. My question is driving more at why conservatives aren't better represented among "secular" art, why it isn't of relatively equal cultural impact, or why...
This isn't a satisfying answer for me. My question is driving more at why conservatives aren't better represented among "secular" art, why it isn't of relatively equal cultural impact, or why conservative art isn't of at least of comparable quality to so-called secular art. As cathartic as it is pointing to an insular political group and calling them cultists (a time honored tradition), I'd prefer to understand why they struggle so much in this particular area, especially since they aren't exactly lacking in resources.
I think it’s more likely that Conservative Christians scoff at the arts and Liberals are more likely to embrace the arts. It’s kind of typical thinking among conservatives that any attempts at...
I think it’s more likely that Conservative Christians scoff at the arts and Liberals are more likely to embrace the arts.
It’s kind of typical thinking among conservatives that any attempts at pursuing art in any way are futile because it won’t land you a good salary. While liberals, a majority of the time anyway, are willing to pursue art just for the art.
The Christian content you’re referring to is also not made with an artistic goal in mind. They’re made to spread a message. When a conservative filmmaker isn’t particularly interested in that and actually has respect for the arts you get like a Clint Eastwood or something.
I'm pretty sure Christians were more fanatical during the renaissance than they are today (the Spanish Inquisition was happening during that time.) We should expect that Christianity would produce...
Christian art is known all over the world and was a major cultural influence for centuries, As they became more fanatical they lost the ability to produce art for arts sake and now only produce it as a recruiting tool.
I'm pretty sure Christians were more fanatical during the renaissance than they are today (the Spanish Inquisition was happening during that time.) We should expect that Christianity would produce the best art at the time; they had the resources and the power to do so.
Now we have our society with no shortage of conservative oligarchs and no meaningful presence in the arts to show for it.
They were fanatical and conservative by modern standards. But relative to that time period, there would have been the same spread of personalities back then as there are today; it's just that...
They were fanatical and conservative by modern standards. But relative to that time period, there would have been the same spread of personalities back then as there are today; it's just that virtually everyone was religious, including even the most daring and expressive artists.
When they created art, it was often religious in nature because that was a big part of their experience. Today, we would call that religious art (because most art today is not religious), but during that time period, they probably did not think of it that way. It was probably just historical, educational, or cultural art to them.
Idk why they feel the need when we have the modern masterpiece that is Snow White and the Huntsman /s In all honesty though, the film is okay, it's just that Charlie Theron and a pretty neat set...
Idk why they feel the need when we have the modern masterpiece that is Snow White and the Huntsman /s
In all honesty though, the film is okay, it's just that Charlie Theron and a pretty neat set of visual effects dominate the story.
Not knowing anything about Brett Cooper or The Daily Wire, for a second there I hoped that instead of a female Snow White, the camera was going to pan to a bearded lumberjack type.
Not knowing anything about Brett Cooper or The Daily Wire, for a second there I hoped that instead of a female Snow White, the camera was going to pan to a bearded lumberjack type.
It feels weird not having Disney make it lol. But I guess it's been public domain for a while. Good for this person. And hopefully they can break out of being "conservative" and instead just be...
It feels weird not having Disney make it lol. But I guess it's been public domain for a while. Good for this person. And hopefully they can break out of being "conservative" and instead just be identified a person.
I know we value insightful discussion here at Tildes but I can't take this one seriously. Instead I'm just going to say lol and then rip on conservatives for a minute. It's Snow White, goddamnit....
I know we value insightful discussion here at Tildes but I can't take this one seriously.
Instead I'm just going to say lol and then rip on conservatives for a minute.
It's Snow White, goddamnit. She needs to be white and proud of it. And I've had it with these politically correct Grimm Brothers with their 19th century ideas. In my day, we just called em what they were - midgets - and the little guys loved it. Plus, they were straight as can be. And if they were a little forceful with the princess, nobody minded. That was what men did back then. You didn't hear all this PC crap about sexual harassment.
Based on the article, it seems like they're ramping up to make a nice subtle indoctrination service that's trusted by conservative parents to make sure the children aren't exposed to cultural......
Based on the article, it seems like they're ramping up to make a nice subtle indoctrination service that's trusted by conservative parents to make sure the children aren't exposed to cultural... Anything.
Just like they're doing with everything else. I'm a middle school teacher at a public school. I'm so exhausted from hardcore conservatives trying to make inverted safe spaces for their abhorrent...
Just like they're doing with everything else. I'm a middle school teacher at a public school. I'm so exhausted from hardcore conservatives trying to make inverted safe spaces for their abhorrent views.
I've talked about this topic before in a fair amount of detail on various forums and it's something to be wary of. However, I'm just thankful that conservatives absolutely suck at making good comedy, movies, TV shows, and pretty much everything else.
Their recent successes in the political sphere frighten me to no end, and they definitely figured out the outrage formula for podcasting and radio. But man, conservative entertainment as a whole has no shot at becoming popular. You ever try to watch a Christian film or conservative stand up comedian? They're all so ham-fisted and dumb.
That's because they're pigeonholed by their black and white worldview. Good......well, anything depends on nuance. For conservatives to acknowledge nuance risks having to admit that not all...
You ever try to watch a Christian film or conservative stand up comedian? They're all so ham-fisted and dumb.
That's because they're pigeonholed by their black and white worldview. Good......well, anything depends on nuance. For conservatives to acknowledge nuance risks having to admit that not all muslims are suicide bombers or that black people aren't all just welfare queens.
So I recently went on a trip with a co-worker, with long car travel between the airport and our destination. I asked her if she could do the driving (because reasons I'll make a topic someday or...
So I recently went on a trip with a co-worker, with long car travel between the airport and our destination. I asked her if she could do the driving (because reasons I'll make a topic someday or other). I figured I'd let her choose the radio station, and to my mild discomfort, she chose a Christian contemporary channel.
It was mostly anodyne, bland, and tolerable. There was nothing that would distinguish the tunes from a standard contemporary easy listening station, except the kind of dynamic range truncation you'd hear in grocery store Muzak. We were chattering amiably the whole time, so I wasn't paying close attention. But every now and then I'd get caught up short by some particularly barbaric lyric phrase about Jesus' wounds or righteous violence or grotesque self-abasement. I hope I was able to maintain a politely composed straight face the whole time.
Sturgeon's Law applies here as elsewhere, and the quality bar for Christian content is set awfully low. I don't want to mock another person's faith or taste. I don't know that excessive sincerity automatically poisons art. There has been some truly great Christian music (Nina Simone's "Sinnerman" is in no way secular), a few great films with themes of faith, etc. However, I deeply, genuinely hope that the propagandists and proselytizers keep true enough to their unconsidered mediocrity that people who care about good art (or genuine resonance with their feelings and experiences) won't send the publishers more money and ad revenue.
This might only be for christian content aimed to be used commercially and made money off. A lot of gospel music I've heard is pretty good, and I say that as an atheist. Sure, it's a genre you can...
Sturgeon's Law applies here as elsewhere, and the quality bar for Christian content is set awfully low.
This might only be for christian content aimed to be used commercially and made money off. A lot of gospel music I've heard is pretty good, and I say that as an atheist. Sure, it's a genre you can absolutely get sick off, but at the same time, I can also get sick off AC/DC because after 8 tracks they sound the same.
Because they're too focused on being correct, they forget to check whether they are funny, useful, or otherwise have anything worthwhile to say. It's not a mental distortion unique to...
You ever try to watch a Christian film or conservative stand up comedian? They're all so ham-fisted and dumb.
Because they're too focused on being correct, they forget to check whether they are funny, useful, or otherwise have anything worthwhile to say. It's not a mental distortion unique to conservatives; it's merely more popular over there. The annoying prog stack lib mirror to these conservative "comedians" are those who fish for applause instead of laughter. IMO, the big difference to those not already invested in relevant ecosystem is that it's easy to have a "they forgot to be funny" moment with conservatives, even if you agree with parts of the message; it's far easier to get swept along with clapter so long as you broadly agree with the views.
Gotta say though, the christian films seem to very slowly be improving. God's Not Dead is one of the least entertaining things I've ever seen, with paint-by-numbers everything and the emotional...
Gotta say though, the christian films seem to very slowly be improving. God's Not Dead is one of the least entertaining things I've ever seen, with paint-by-numbers everything and the emotional heft of a sleeping chihuahua. Jesus Revolution, from this year, was at least not that. The characters were neither convincing nor entertaining, they played it loose with facts, and it was undeniably Calvary Chapel et al. propaganda. But the message was generally positive from any non-extremist perspective (if insipid), and it seemed to try to create resonant moments that weren't just the bad atheist being shown comeuppance or a mother crying over her child's crisis of faith. The moderation in message is a pretty good sign, but maybe these studios shouldn't be given an inch.
I wonder if Snow White will be 8 years old as the original was or if that whole liberal cuck don’t //openly// support child marriage ideology has invaded these supposed true believers. As history...
I wonder if Snow White will be 8 years old as the original was or if that whole liberal cuck don’t //openly// support child marriage ideology has invaded these supposed true believers. As history and voting records show they do support or at least somewhat quietly.
Just checked- she’s not. The MSM and cancel culture wins again!
Does anyone have any well reasoned ideas on why conservatives seem to perform so poorly in the arts? I'm looking for resources or explanations, not low effort polemics.
Music, online content, TV shows, movies; consistently conservative (and Christian) media is of far lower quality the majority of the time. Why aren't they better at this?
Conservatives (and Christians), to say the least, have a disproportionate share of the wealth and power of our society. One would expect that they'd have a stronger impact on culture and the arts than they do.
I think meaningful art demands an emotional and analytical investment that runs antithesis to modern conservatism.
Enjoying the plight of characters we can't directly relate to on a 1-for-1 basis requires us to exercise our empathy and emotional intelligence. Thinking metaphorically, searching a text or song or poem for a deeper contextual meaning, doesn't interest them unless it's for conspiratorial thinking. Nuance, questions of morality, questions of identity, existentialism... this sort of thinking is deliberately tamped down by conservative ideology as a means to preserve itself.
We use the arts to explore ideas and since the dawn of time, the right-wing authoritarians of history have done what they could to stifle the arts. Exploring the idea space around different concepts like society or life itself is seen as, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, dangerous. The simple answer, in a reductive sense, is that if someone conservative has the ability to analyze the world around them with a nuanced, insightful, emotionally resonant flexibility leveraged to create meaningful art, they wouldn't be conservative. Not as a dig at conservatives (here, anyway) but as a truth that people who can't or won't value art in a meaningful sense have difficulty creating meaningful art.
I personally know conservatives that love poetry, music, and storytelling. Who will study Scripture, sing and analyze hymns, and dig deep into moral philosophy to try to understand how they should live. Not all conservatives are conspiracy theorists or Qanon cultists; I'd wager a large percentage of them are not.
Nonetheless, conservative art deeply sucks and it isn't obvious why.
Ah I wanted to get into this in my first comment but was worried about ranting or getting sidetracked.
I think religion is the closest thing to creative expression through a conservative lens. It can appeal to a need to explore hidden meaning or external influence. It embodies symbolism. But the key difference between religious tradition and a more general artistic expression is its inherent flattening of nuance. Christianity is an obvious example. All good things flow from God and his followers, all bad things from the devil or God's wayward children. Any confusion, any morally gray conundrums or differences in perspective are derived from God testing us, or the Devil tempting us. Any positive aspect of human existence is merely an expression of God's goodness.
For example, love for a spouse or child, opportunity, luck, safety, perseverance, bravery. All of these are vastly different emotional ideas, and diverse aspects of our lives. But since they have positive connotations, they are all attributed to the same homogenous source, God's light, His positive influence. It's tough to feel encouraged to explore each one conceptually, to dive into what each one means when they're all aspects of the same thing. Why be curious when you're already familiar with God's embrace? It's a deference to simplicity. It, by design, lacks depth in exchange for easy-to-digest rhetoric. There's comfort and meaning in that, but leads to a sort of "with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" philosophy. The same is true for negative concepts. Things that are different, unfamiliar, gross, or weird. Corruption, cruelty, argument, physical and mental suffering. All can be flattened down into "evil" concepts. Things that must be defeated by good. Things that must be rejected and unexamined for your own sanctity.
Polytheistic religions expand somewhat, offering different deities to represent different concepts in daily life. But in the same way, encourages thought to coalesce around singular concepts, lone attributions. Hunting and pursuit to Artemis, destruction to Sheva. An ocean of meaning and intricacy refined to a singular notional point. It forces compartmentalization. It asks the world to fit into categories that seldom overlap.
To bring this all back, religious arts share many similarities with other forms of expression but ultimately act as a reinforcement of existing rhetorical boundaries, instead of testing or transforming our understanding. It forces our experiences through a limited lens, so as a result, religious art is by definition limited. It runs counter to the human need to be transformative and exploratory. Its messages aren't about examining new ideas, but bringing everything back to the old ones. The only ideas, old as time itself so they purport.
I don't want to imply that conservatives are somehow not human, and can't appreciate music, art, or poetry the way real humans can. I think there's a philosophical difference where the rhetoric behind this expression lies. People are inclined to enjoy rhythm and melody, to express themselves and celebrate ideas through painting or storytelling. But I think "good" art is derived from a need to share one's unique perspective, and religious art is derived from a need to echo a singular, shared perspective. It doesn't engage the mind of observers, it doesn't challenge what they know. It isn't fundamentally intriguing as a byproduct of what it represents, a shared and celebrated uniformity.
When I was Christian, I always tried to think about how God was communicating to me through things that happened in my life. What I could do to exemplify good Christian values, how I could better serve Him in my day-to-day, and in return what love God provided and how it was expressed. I had this drive to categorize my life in adherence to how it was preached to me. Existentialism and philosophy were opportunities to find a "Christian destination" in any conceptual challenge. A definitive solution that fit with my worldview, my understanding in which all of the systems of the universe operated, and my tools to break these concepts down were extensions of my faith. Severely limited, lacking perspective, inherently reductive. I had to find myself, learn from countless others, and engage in perspectives that made me uncomfortable to reach the point I'm at today. To be able to even say these words, think these thoughts.
As someone raised in a highly conservative Christian home, all of this really lines up. I grew up watching my dad struggle to express himself without acknowledging the actual pain, confusion, and loneliness of the human condition. Without acknowledging all the questions and mystery at the heart of so much great art.
It wasn't that he wasn't lonely or that he didn't experience complex, conflicting emotions about the world, it's that he would never allow himself to go to a place where those things were acknowledged because to acknowledge those concepts conflicted with the unbending faith required by the christian world view, that the Bible and prayer contained all the answers one needed and that being "saved" was suppose to be a transformative process that changed you fundementally into a person who didn't experience things like despair.
For example, he would try to write music without using any kind of minor chords because minor chords can add an element of melancholy, which was something he "shouldn't" feel as a born again christian, things like melancholy, depression, longing etc. were all emotions that ungodly people experienced because of the moral confusion created by their unbelief.
Now that I type it out I realize this is probably one of the core parts of why I grew to really dislike the abrahamic philosophies themselves. The way in which the religions stunt people's natural humanity, their ability to connect and share in a genuine way, and their ability to confront reality in a healthy way, is just so profoundly wrong to me. It reveals the deceit upon which all of it is based.
Oh goodness, that music example is the epitome of existential horror. For such a fundamental aspect of the human experience to be so terrifying to a person as to lose their identity if they were to acknowledge it.
-- Jean-Paul Sartre
I similarly grew up in a conservative household in a very conservative region of the US, and left it behind in my 20s. Frustratingly, even though I've been a self described atheist for ~15 years I still catch myself taking mental shortcuts like you describe in the quote above.
"An ocean of meaning and intricacy refined to a singular notional point."
I don't think that religion (monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, or polytheism/paganism) was quite that binary or monolithic in general in the past though.
To me, it feels pretty reductionist to handwave away thousands of years of religious history like that while ignoring the esoteric Christianity/Judaism/Islamic movements and elements that shaped exoteric practices and thought within those religions that lead to some of the great art of the time and places that we can still enjoy and look at today.
Polytheism and paganism also aren't (and still isn't) as simple as "Artemis = hunt", or "Shiva= destruction" either. These people were using these personified and anthropomorphic concepts to explain complex cosmological views.
Those pagan myths and legends were likely tied in some form of animism, and sometimes with very local expressions of gods/goddesses that had thier own temples or cults that did thier own thing when it came to the Greco-Roman pantheon at least.
The past was probably a lot more patchwork when it came to religious expression than we probably usually think of.
Does that apply to modern Christianity in the US? I dunno, I think it's probably more diverse than we think, but also the most annoying and uncreative people in Evangelical spaces seem to want to push thier brand/content the most.
This line prompted me to think if the split between conservative, leftist, liberal, and other art communities is another piece of fallout from the invention of photography. It's the difference between the technical finesse of "art is supposed to be beautiful" and the endless semantic wars over what constitutes "true art" in non-conservative circles.
In terms of narrative art, it's a split between who can best retell well-known stories and those who attempt to say something unique. In a world where media is no longer ephemeral, why would I want to see a conservative recreation when I can enjoy the original?
I think a lot of it comes down to the general public perception that things are better now than they were in the past. Most stories focus around some major change in the status quo, which usually aligns better with progressive ideas. It's a lot harder to map "we should return everything exactly to the way it was" ideologically onto a satisfying story. Narratives thrive on conflict and change, which doesn't mesh well with tradition. On the other hand, if the prevailing mood was that things are worse nowadays, we might see more stories about adhering to traditional values, but historically that hasn't been been as popular a feeling.
I've seen a similar argument as to why conservative "humour" is usually not funny at all. To be able to subvert expectations, mock existing hierarchies, compose and contrast ideas, you can't maintain a conservative world-view that expects these things to remain the same or stable.
It seems like there's endless storytelling you could do about returning to a better time before the degeneracy of modern society. There's been tons of incredible dystopian content that could be spreading an eco-fasc message with minor tweaks (e.g., reject modernity, embrace tradition).
And this doesn't seem to account for why they suck at all art. What about their music? What about comedy? Why does every cultural product they produce suck so goddamn much? It's more than bad storytelling; the overall quality is lower by every measure.
That's true! What I said is probably just one factor of many. @dsh made a good point above that it's hard to make fun of hierarchies and contrast ideas when the conservative worldview believes we should live under rigid hierarchy, which I think explains a bit more generally why it all seems to suck.
Edit: Also, the viewpoint that conservative art is created from is basically the same everywhere so it all comes out pretty same-y. There's very little diversity of opinion, which is just uninteresting.
This tangentially reminds me of Komar & Melamid's painting by numbers project. The highest-polling options were consistently predominantly blue landscapes no matter which culture was surveyed. The least-desirable painting opinions had distinctive variations between nations.
Happyconservativefamiliespolitics are all alike; eachmiserablechange-making movement is unique.I think nearly all art often requires boundary pushing and challenging the status quo to create something beyond what has been done before.
I also think that plenty of conservative people make successful art, they just write what they think people will like rather than what they necessarily believe. That isn't limited to conservatism but there's plenty of cognitive dissonance amongst wealthy/successful actors, musicians, writers, directors (or perhaps they're fully happy and have no dissonance at all) between what values they actually believe and what roles they take or songs they sing.
Because creating art is secondary to fulfilling an agenda. Take something like Brooklyn 99 for example; Captain Holt being gay may be an integral part of the story but making a show about a gay police captain was not the goal. And if you turn Kevin into Kayla the true primary goal is still mostly accomplished, creating a funny cop show. With 99.9%, oh fuck it, 100% of conservative entertainment, the primary goal is furthering a conservative agenda. And when you remove the conservative agenda you're left with a husk of a show, and for those who don't care about "owning the libs", the dried up husk is all you'll ever notice.
We see tons of incredible art that is primarily furthering a left-wing critique of society. I'd almost be willing to state that the best art often exists as a leftist political critique. From environmentalist art and films, to anti-war films, to punk, to the general progressive boundary pushing across the board (LGBTQ inclusivity early on, anti-racist films, etc.) It's everywhere, even in art you don't expect it: District 9's critique of South African apartheid, Elysium's heavy handed critique of inequality, and I have so much more but the list could go on indefinitely.
The left has Rage Against the Machine, the right, Kid Rock. Elysium was honestly kinda mid, but I couldn't fathom a movie with it's production quality having a conservative message.
If your art is primarily about making a statement, if it "has an agenda" it often is better than it would otherwise be.
I would argue that making a statement (God is great and God is powerful) and furthering an agenda (I wanted to find a leftist example for balance but I couldn't think of any lol) are two separate things.
I can’t remember which video/article I saw it in exactly, but one person put it that conservative media is judged by conservatives not by how good it is, but by how conservative it is—how well it hits the target. God’s Not Dead doesn’t need to be good for 50,000 youth groups to screen it—it doesn’t explain why creators ignore or butcher the genuinely stirring source material in favor of hallmark movies with Kevin Sorbo, but it did make a lot of sense.
Like their humor or not, Some More News covered this topic very well.
Going through their sources is also a fantastic option to learn more.
Personally, I'd say its simply because "Scrappy underdog beats The Man" is a better story than "The Man successfully subjugates underdog again." And what are jokes but very short form fiction.
And they spent that budget slashing arts programs in schools, and undercutting any attempt to get liveable (let alone good) wages for those who make it through anyway. It seems like the natural outcome for not caring about art to be unable to resonate with what made the best art so memorable. As a corollary: Art is an inherently risky venture and even the successes operate on thin margins. There won't be as much investment in the arts as a result from those who care about their money, and the few investments are more likely to be micro-managed on account of that being how investors in general tend to work.
Which is another factor that just doesn't work in the arts: there are many sectors where you can copy a business scheme and get somewhat similar results. You can't just make a good piece of art by superficially enjoying a certain show and trying to make your own show based on what you think you liked about it. That's why there are people who's entire careers revolve around analyzing and critiquing art: it's hard to find what really worked, who made it work (or held it back), and then communicate that to others. And even if you can, there may have been some unsung talent underneath the writing or art direction that lead that work in the right path.
Kind of a stream of conscious, and I could probably go on for paragraphs more, but I think you understand the general idea. They didn't invest in talent or understanding, so it makes sense they lack quality and subtlety. Your first goal as a piece of entertainment is the engage the audience, but many of the pieces of low quality conservative media that comes to mind seems to focus on preaching its values first. This isn't limited to conservative media (Velma 2023 immediately comes to mind as an example on the opposite part of the spectrum), but liberal/bipartisan media has more shots to take.
To try and prompt a more poignant question: what is a piece of work that is appreciated by conservatives? There aren't really a lot of pieces of animation that make me think "this is a conservative cartoon" to begin with. That would be the first step to determine what is "good" and then derive how other works failed to live up to those factors. If we truly can't find one, that's probably the first place to start.
Are these separate categories or one? because the words seem to be used interchangeably throughout the discussion.
American media is rife with Christian themes. The extremely successful 1950s films The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur. The Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice works of the 1970s, Jesus Christ Superstar and Joseph.
1990s - "One Of Us" "Who Will Save Your Soul" multiple books from the Left Behind series topped the NYT Bestsellers list.
2000s - "Jesus, Take The Wheel" VeggieTales, The Passion of the Christ made more than half a billion USD worldwide.
2010s - Chance the Rapper's performance at the Grammys from the year he won Best Rap Album. A certain red hat wearing shoe designer had a song chart across Billboard's hot 100, rap, gospel, and christian charts.
There's a flavor of "conservative Christian" media, such as this Snow White film I suspect, where I don't think there is an intent of broad appeal. It's in-group reinforcement, which is why something can be soundly panned by secular critics yet well rated by Christian critics--and still profitable. It's preaching to the choir whereas I, not the target audience, interpret it as proselytizing. Is it a recent phenomenon or did I only become aware of it because of increased distribution and marketing?
C. S. Lewis is still read, well-regarded, and perhaps best known for The Chronicles of Narnia series. The Disney adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,
plot point
in which the lion dies and is resurrected,I'm sure there are plenty of artists who hold some conservative views and still make good art, but getting together a group of specifically conservative artists to make a film serving an explicit conservative ideological goal is both severely limiting your talent pool and subordinating the art to the ideology, both things that hurt the quality of the product.
People have often pointed out that the message of Pixar's The Incredibles is a warning against government regulation, so that at least confirms you can make a good movie with a conservative message if you can sneak that message past the mostly liberal talent pool making it.
Besides the other answers here, I think a lot of it just comes down to budget and resources. In general, the arts and entertainment industries are pretty progressive. And in general, the best and brightest from those industries wouldn't touch these Conservative projects with a 10 foot pole. The people making these Conservative entertainment projects by and large aren't very talented. I don't think there's much more to it than that. Budget and talent aren't everything, but they can do a hell of a lot to elevate any creative project.
I guess I'm confused on why budget and resources are a problem for conservative art when conservatives have a disproportionate amount of wealth in society. Why aren't these industries more conservative? Why won't artists touch conservative projects with a 10-foot pole. Why aren't conservative artists talented?
Just because Conservatives hold a lot of money and power overall, doesn't mean that that power is evenly distributed across all of society. To continue to speak in very broad generalities, I'd say that the arts attract progressive individuals by their nature. Creative work requires intellectual flexibility, open-mindedness, and a curiosity about other people's viewpoints. Altogether basically the opposite of Conservatism.
Also, I didn't say that Conservative artists are not talented. I said that the best talent isn't attracted to these Conservative-first entertainment products. Regardless of anyone's personal political views, these projects are lower-budget, offer little creative freedom and—at best—don't further people's careers outside of the Conservative media-verse. At worst, tying your name to one of these projects can actively hurt your career prospects in the "mainstream media."
Oh I see.
When you say their power isn't evenly distributed across society, would you say that the right has less cultural power than the left? And if so, do you think that is unique to our modern context or something related to the nature of reactionary politics in general?
We're kind of speaking too broadly to have all to much meaning. Specifically, I'm saying that the people in the Western, for-profit, mass-media industries tend to lean left for the reasons mentioned above. I'd also say that the people working in the fine arts world (artists, galleries, museums) tend to lean left for the same reasons. It's a matter of self-selection. Does this mean that the Right has "less cultural power?" Really hard to say, imo. There's a lot more to "culture" than the industries/milieus I was talking about.
It's a really interesting question. I don't know the answer (and I'm not sure how one could find it out).
I think a plausible explanation is this: conservatives have disproportionate economic and political power because economic and political structures favour them. Cultural power is harder to "game": art has to resonate to be popular, and conservative ideas do not resonate with the public as a whole. That's not to say that there aren't lots of conservatives in the art world who are good at their jobs, there are (Kelsey Grammer, JD Vance, etc). But art made from a conservative perspective is not economically viable and so the only people who make it aren't very good at it.
I don't think it's related to any fundamental relationship between conservatism and art; it might just be a modern America thing. On the contrary, bemoaning modernity and romanticizing a simpler/older time has led to many great pieces of art, and that's fundamentally a very conservative perspective. I would say there's many small-c conservatives in the arts that are not very vocal about their views or are checked out of modern American politics for how off the rails it's gotten.
Being open-minded and willing to accept change lends itself better to being creative.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say all conservatives-leaning media sucks but I think it has to fall back to the idea that conservatism, by definition, is a selfish ideology that seeks to keep things as they are from an individual viewpoint. Just look at MAGA - whose version of America was great? Surely, they don’t all have the exact same view of what time period was best in America. The entire presupposition of conservatism is a combination of two parts - what do I want to conserve and who do I want included in those benefits?
So, what does that have to do with the question? Most art and media is an effort of multiple people with multiple viewpoints. There is no singular vision of the world for others who believe that diversity, spectrums, and change are fundamentals. It takes hundreds of people sometimes to make media and they all have to work together so the mood has to be very collaborative and supportive. Even with individual art, it takes multiple people to put that out into the world. One person may be able to make it but, without others (barring truly exceptional art), that art goes nowhere.
Any group whose existence predicates exclusion of people will shrink in size. Smaller groups will have a hard time making relatable art because, unless people share your exact, specific viewpoint, you’re not speaking to them.
I would say we don't really consider things to be overtly "conservative" when they are things we already accept. There are some really good Christmas songs, but a Chriatmas song isn't necessarily conservative even though conservatives in my country take Christmas very seriously.
A lot of people are "conservative" because they place value on tradition, but the things that are tradition don't need to be overtly political, they are already part of the status quo are are just accepted as normal. When you write a love song about heteronormative romance where the man makes the first move, that's not a conservative love song, that's just a love song.
This isn't a satisfying answer for me. My question is driving more at why conservatives aren't better represented among "secular" art, why it isn't of relatively equal cultural impact, or why conservative art isn't of at least of comparable quality to so-called secular art. As cathartic as it is pointing to an insular political group and calling them cultists (a time honored tradition), I'd prefer to understand why they struggle so much in this particular area, especially since they aren't exactly lacking in resources.
I think it’s more likely that Conservative Christians scoff at the arts and Liberals are more likely to embrace the arts.
It’s kind of typical thinking among conservatives that any attempts at pursuing art in any way are futile because it won’t land you a good salary. While liberals, a majority of the time anyway, are willing to pursue art just for the art.
The Christian content you’re referring to is also not made with an artistic goal in mind. They’re made to spread a message. When a conservative filmmaker isn’t particularly interested in that and actually has respect for the arts you get like a Clint Eastwood or something.
If you have an hour to kill, Some More News did an episode about conservative "comedy"
You know I forgot to include comedy in my initial list of arts. I'll watch the video, hopefully it's more broadly applicable than just comedy
I'm pretty sure Christians were more fanatical during the renaissance than they are today (the Spanish Inquisition was happening during that time.) We should expect that Christianity would produce the best art at the time; they had the resources and the power to do so.
Now we have our society with no shortage of conservative oligarchs and no meaningful presence in the arts to show for it.
They were fanatical and conservative by modern standards. But relative to that time period, there would have been the same spread of personalities back then as there are today; it's just that virtually everyone was religious, including even the most daring and expressive artists.
When they created art, it was often religious in nature because that was a big part of their experience. Today, we would call that religious art (because most art today is not religious), but during that time period, they probably did not think of it that way. It was probably just historical, educational, or cultural art to them.
Idk why they feel the need when we have the modern masterpiece that is Snow White and the Huntsman /s
In all honesty though, the film is okay, it's just that Charlie Theron and a pretty neat set of visual effects dominate the story.
Not knowing anything about Brett Cooper or The Daily Wire, for a second there I hoped that instead of a female Snow White, the camera was going to pan to a bearded lumberjack type.
It feels weird not having Disney make it lol. But I guess it's been public domain for a while. Good for this person. And hopefully they can break out of being "conservative" and instead just be identified a person.
It was public domain before Disney. At least the original story which is quite a bit more grim.
I know we value insightful discussion here at Tildes but I can't take this one seriously.
Instead I'm just going to say lol and then rip on conservatives for a minute.
It's Snow White, goddamnit. She needs to be white and proud of it. And I've had it with these politically correct Grimm Brothers with their 19th century ideas. In my day, we just called em what they were - midgets - and the little guys loved it. Plus, they were straight as can be. And if they were a little forceful with the princess, nobody minded. That was what men did back then. You didn't hear all this PC crap about sexual harassment.
Based on the article, it seems like they're ramping up to make a nice subtle indoctrination service that's trusted by conservative parents to make sure the children aren't exposed to cultural... Anything.
Just like they're doing with everything else. I'm a middle school teacher at a public school. I'm so exhausted from hardcore conservatives trying to make inverted safe spaces for their abhorrent views.
I've talked about this topic before in a fair amount of detail on various forums and it's something to be wary of. However, I'm just thankful that conservatives absolutely suck at making good comedy, movies, TV shows, and pretty much everything else.
Their recent successes in the political sphere frighten me to no end, and they definitely figured out the outrage formula for podcasting and radio. But man, conservative entertainment as a whole has no shot at becoming popular. You ever try to watch a Christian film or conservative stand up comedian? They're all so ham-fisted and dumb.
That's because they're pigeonholed by their black and white worldview. Good......well, anything depends on nuance. For conservatives to acknowledge nuance risks having to admit that not all muslims are suicide bombers or that black people aren't all just welfare queens.
So I recently went on a trip with a co-worker, with long car travel between the airport and our destination. I asked her if she could do the driving (because reasons I'll make a topic someday or other). I figured I'd let her choose the radio station, and to my mild discomfort, she chose a Christian contemporary channel.
It was mostly anodyne, bland, and tolerable. There was nothing that would distinguish the tunes from a standard contemporary easy listening station, except the kind of dynamic range truncation you'd hear in grocery store Muzak. We were chattering amiably the whole time, so I wasn't paying close attention. But every now and then I'd get caught up short by some particularly barbaric lyric phrase about Jesus' wounds or righteous violence or grotesque self-abasement. I hope I was able to maintain a politely composed straight face the whole time.
Sturgeon's Law applies here as elsewhere, and the quality bar for Christian content is set awfully low. I don't want to mock another person's faith or taste. I don't know that excessive sincerity automatically poisons art. There has been some truly great Christian music (Nina Simone's "Sinnerman" is in no way secular), a few great films with themes of faith, etc. However, I deeply, genuinely hope that the propagandists and proselytizers keep true enough to their unconsidered mediocrity that people who care about good art (or genuine resonance with their feelings and experiences) won't send the publishers more money and ad revenue.
This might only be for christian content aimed to be used commercially and made money off. A lot of gospel music I've heard is pretty good, and I say that as an atheist. Sure, it's a genre you can absolutely get sick off, but at the same time, I can also get sick off AC/DC because after 8 tracks they sound the same.
Because they're too focused on being correct, they forget to check whether they are funny, useful, or otherwise have anything worthwhile to say. It's not a mental distortion unique to conservatives; it's merely more popular over there. The annoying prog stack lib mirror to these conservative "comedians" are those who fish for applause instead of laughter. IMO, the big difference to those not already invested in relevant ecosystem is that it's easy to have a "they forgot to be funny" moment with conservatives, even if you agree with parts of the message; it's far easier to get swept along with clapter so long as you broadly agree with the views.
Gotta say though, the christian films seem to very slowly be improving. God's Not Dead is one of the least entertaining things I've ever seen, with paint-by-numbers everything and the emotional heft of a sleeping chihuahua. Jesus Revolution, from this year, was at least not that. The characters were neither convincing nor entertaining, they played it loose with facts, and it was undeniably Calvary Chapel et al. propaganda. But the message was generally positive from any non-extremist perspective (if insipid), and it seemed to try to create resonant moments that weren't just the bad atheist being shown comeuppance or a mother crying over her child's crisis of faith. The moderation in message is a pretty good sign, but maybe these studios shouldn't be given an inch.
I wonder if Snow White will be 8 years old as the original was or if that whole liberal cuck don’t //openly// support child marriage ideology has invaded these supposed true believers. As history and voting records show they do support or at least somewhat quietly.
Just checked- she’s not. The MSM and cancel culture wins again!
Gross, that sounded like something my grandparents would say. Which was the goal so.....bravo!..I guess.
I, uh, don't know what to say
I'm sure it will be quickly forgotten just like all the other trash "media" they have made.