Conservatives and the Arts, a perspective

[n2ize]

I have a theory. It goes like this. In order to be a true artist of great stature and quality you have to be a liberal left winger. It is impossible for conservatives to really excel in the arts because they tend to lack the sense of human compassion and deep feeling that those on the left can. We repeatedly see the insensitivity in conservatives, woith respect to war, with respect to other cultures, with respect to the poor, the downtrodden, with respect to their disdain for intellectuals, socialists, communists, anarchists and other peoples of passion. Such insensitivities block the deep rooted sense of creativity needed for one to excel in the arts. Which is why I feel the arts are a realm in which the greater degree of excellence and feeling come from the liberal side as opposed to the conservative side.

[NQ6U]

Well, there was the poet Ezra Pound, a profound anti-semite and supporter of European fascism. And don't forget Richard Wagner, either.

But, for the most part, art is a direct threat to conservatism.

[KG4CGC]

But, for the most part, art is a direct threat to conservatism.

Human existence is a direct threat to conservatism!

[NQ6U]

Human existence is a direct threat to conservatism!

Any sentient being is a direct threat to conservatism.

[WØTKX]

But, don't you understand?
There is great romance in the shedding of passion and... wtf, no WHIMS?

Man’s need of precise definitions rests on the Law of Identity: A is A, a thing is itself. A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk.

“Something made by an artist” is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist.

“Something in a frame hung on a wall” is not a definition of painting.

“Something with a number of pages in a binding” is not a definition of literature.

“Something piled together” is not a definition of sculpture.

“Something made of sounds produced by anything” is not a definition of music.

“Something glued on a flat surface” is not a definition of any art.There is no art that uses glue as a medium. Blades of grass glued on a sheet of paper to represent grass might be good occupational therapy for retarded children—though I doubt it—but it is not art.

“Because I felt like it” is not a definition or validation of anything.

There is no place for whim in any human activity—if it is to be regarded as human. There is no place for the unknowable, the unintelligible, the undefinable, the non-objective in any human product. This side of an insane asylum, the actions of a human being are motivated by a conscious purpose; when they are not, they are of no interest to anyone outside a psychotherapist’s office. And when the practitioners of modern art declare that they don’t know what they are doing or what makes them do it, we should take their word for it and give them no further consideration.

Excerpt from "Art and Cognition",The Romantic Manifesto, by Ayn Rand

[NQ6U]

[KG4CGC]

Here's the thing, conservatives want to use art to promote a product or an agenda. They don't want to pay for it though. They think anyone can do it. They think, "It's just drawing. I let you do to help out your portfolio. Otherwise, my 12 year old niece could have done the same thing for free and she would have been happy to do it."
Conservatives are generally idiots when it comes to anything that doesn't deal with how will it make them wealthier. When it comes to making money for themselves, they'll screw their own grandmother in the butt.
Ugly picture, isn't it? All the hyperbole about virtue is just an act to rationalize their treatment of others. They also believe that their philanthropy absolves them of their sins.
Why are they like this? Arrogance and self loathing.

[WØTKX]

creativity is spookiness...

[NQ6U]

More of Ayn Rand on modern art:

As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art.

So, according to her, non-representational art isn't art at all, which means she's excluding most of the art created in the first half of the 20th century. What that really comes down to is "if I don't understand it, it's not art." Sounds like the typical conservative view on not only art but almost everything else.

[KG4CGC]

creativity is spookiness...

Exactly! This is why they treat women as second class citizens. They can produce a life! "OMG! We must control that!"