C
cheezey
Guest
Ha!!!
- Status
3
3DOCTORS
Guest
The artistic movement of Romanticism would be a possible explanation from with the arts themselves - metmuseum.org/toah/hd/roma/hd_roma.htm
as would Modernism, Bohemianism, Expressionism, and the cultural milieux in which they developed. They were originally rebellions against the Academy and representationalism in art (I’m grossly oversimplifying a lot of things here, please forgive me for that). Then they became embraced by academics.
I think I’d have to write a book to really do this explanation justice.
And as an artistic person myself, I’m not going to talk trash about all these artistic movements because some of what they produced opened doors for some good too. Same in the literary and other artistic fields. But yes, having been a liberal arts major at a state university, I know that the lefties have the home field advantage.
Oh and, if it matters, I’m an Independent, learning about Distributism and liking what I see so far, and would mostly apply “Conservative” to my moral values.
I don’t like the US political 2-party system as it stands - both sides have huge faults IMO. :twocents:
as would Modernism, Bohemianism, Expressionism, and the cultural milieux in which they developed. They were originally rebellions against the Academy and representationalism in art (I’m grossly oversimplifying a lot of things here, please forgive me for that). Then they became embraced by academics.
I think I’d have to write a book to really do this explanation justice.
And as an artistic person myself, I’m not going to talk trash about all these artistic movements because some of what they produced opened doors for some good too. Same in the literary and other artistic fields. But yes, having been a liberal arts major at a state university, I know that the lefties have the home field advantage.
Oh and, if it matters, I’m an Independent, learning about Distributism and liking what I see so far, and would mostly apply “Conservative” to my moral values.
I don’t like the US political 2-party system as it stands - both sides have huge faults IMO. :twocents:
T
TheLiberator
Guest
It’s strange; I want to become a filmmaker and screenwriter myself. I enjoy experimenting with different genres and storytelling methods, covering unconventional themes, and even “artsy”-ness in general. But I’m definitely a conservative (as was Carl Theodor Dreyer, director of Passion of Joan of Arc). I also happen to be pro-life without exception, a pacifist, and an opponent of violence in all its forms.
I am particularly fascinated by existentialism and existentialist storytelling, even thought it attracted a lot of atheistic lefties during the twentieth century. Sartre and de Beauvoir said some things I find downright morally reprehensible. I’m much more of a Camus person.
I am particularly fascinated by existentialism and existentialist storytelling, even thought it attracted a lot of atheistic lefties during the twentieth century. Sartre and de Beauvoir said some things I find downright morally reprehensible. I’m much more of a Camus person.
5
50yroldTOBfan
Guest
I heard a black conservative youtube artist, can’t remember his name, say that liberals live in a somewhat utopian, imaginary world - and that overlaps very much with the artistic mindset.
I think we really need to evangelize artists. Not only for their sake, which of course is important and should be paramount, but also for OUR sake. We NEED artists and all their talents. These talents shouldn’t be misused to undermine Christianity, but to make Christ known and loved.
I think we really need to evangelize artists. Not only for their sake, which of course is important and should be paramount, but also for OUR sake. We NEED artists and all their talents. These talents shouldn’t be misused to undermine Christianity, but to make Christ known and loved.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Picasso was very heterosexual.
I think most conservatives prefer representational art. paintings that look like photos to modern non-representational paintings for some reason.
John Wayne was certainly very conservative as an actor. I think he was buddies with President Reagan. Can’t get more conservative than that.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Johnny Ramone was conservative. But I’m not sure he’d be called an artist.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
Salvador Dali of course was Spanish, strong Catholic from what I know and I’d think leaned Conservative versus some others of that art movement, Dada and Surrealism. I don’t think he was a leftist though I’m not saying he sympathized with the Monarchy side in the Spanish Civil War. He painted some very horrifying paintings concerning the war.
edali.org/the-face-of-war.jsp
edali.org/the-face-of-war.jsp
3
3DOCTORS
Guest
^^This for sure.^^
I’m often alone in my defense of non-representational art among fellow Christians. My main argument is God gave us sight (or touch, or hearing) and patterns and colors, patterns, rhythms, and forms can be beautiful in themselves, and can lead us to Him and an appreciation of how “fearfully and wonderfully” we are made to be able to enjoy them.
And one need not adopt a morally permissive lifestyle to be a creative person.I forgot to mention “The Enlightenment” mindset in my previous post . . . :doh2: Rather a glaring omission, but it was late . . . The Enlightenment was a watershed of trusting other authorities than the Church - science, free thinking, etc. As well as artistic, I’m also scientifically minded, and I like to find and defend the idea that truth discovered by science, or beauty expressed in the arts, need not oppose Christianity.
F
friardchips
Guest
In response to a fair few posts here, I think it can be analysed further. You see, from personal experience, I would say that lefties are more socially critical - challenging of the norm, so to speak. A consequence of that is a type of rebellion against all forms of status-quo and acceptable behaviour. Hence, shock tactics come into play, that seeps its way into one’s own lifestyle (‘moral permissiveness’ - to quote the above post). But for the right, it comes down to being concerned with gentle progress for the sake of the future and not changing things for the sake of change - the right normally is more accepting of the past and of the current situation - to conserve - and so it would seem that one’s own lifestyle choices might be an extension of that acceptance - living to more accepted principles and codes for living. So artists are going to be exaggerations of those stereotypical categories because they express in their work and lifestyle what is to some degree only thought about in society. Although all people’s lives are in a way canvases - this is what I feel more comfortable believing as a Christian - so even the humblest and quietest of lives hold dear meaning to God; in fact, the humblest of lives need to contain the finest and therefore most intricate brush work.^^This for sure.^^
I’m often alone in my defense of non-representational art among fellow Christians. My main argument is God gave us sight (or touch, or hearing) and patterns and colors, patterns, rhythms, and forms can be beautiful in themselves, and can lead us to Him and an appreciation of how “fearfully and wonderfully” we are made to be able to enjoy them.
I forgot to mention “The Enlightenment” mindset in my previous post . . . :doh2: Rather a glaring omission, but it was late . . . The Enlightenment was a watershed of trusting other authorities than the Church - science, free thinking, etc. As well as artistic, I’m also scientifically minded, and I like to find and defend the idea that truth discovered by science, or beauty expressed in the arts, need not oppose Christianity.
F
friardchips
Guest
Btw…3DOCTORS, Science and art points to God. Sounds as if you have fun mission to make!
M
Midwest88
Guest
As some have said, it may be due to the mediums of art being a self-expression venue. Self-expression, when not looked at critical or restrained in some way, is ultimately narcissistic and self-absorbed. Truths become “my truth” and “anything goes” happens in the name of “art.”
Also, “artists” (I put in quotes because I’m starting to call them as they are: painters, actors, directors, writers, dancers etc.) tend to more insecure than the average person. If feelings & impulse, and “gut”, dictate what you do then you’re bound to be persuaded by modern and non-conservative ideals and beliefs. Many artists who are considered “elite,” despite having the means to live in the most desirable cities on earth, are, ironically, trapped in their own bubble world of adoration.
The art world is a strange place not because it’s so “progressive” and forward thinking - it’s really not - but because there is little reason and rigor once one becomes established. There is no checks-and-balances and the established can do and say almost whatever they want without (serious) repercussions. The “elite” art world is a world that is critical of the status quo, yet they aren’t critical of their own works – in fact, if criticism is put forward the “you just don’t get it” or “it’s subjective” is thrown in defense and all is OKAY. The adulation resumes. The lauded work is still lauded and detractors are put in the “that’s just your opinion” or "well the critics say otherwise so … "
The constant questioning of the status quo is like a child constantly asking “Why?” (If you’ve familiar with the Animaniacs, there’s a segment of a small child asking this to her mother whom she addresses as “Pretty Lady.” The small child, while cute, becomes thoroughly obnoxious, and even when “Pretty Lady” explains something, the child keeps asking “Why?” in the end not really learning anything because of this question – still stuck in the original stage, not actually advancing anywhere.)
I suggest reading books from Roger Kimball and Roger Scruton, They have written about the art world from a conservative perspective, sobering reality.
Also, “artists” (I put in quotes because I’m starting to call them as they are: painters, actors, directors, writers, dancers etc.) tend to more insecure than the average person. If feelings & impulse, and “gut”, dictate what you do then you’re bound to be persuaded by modern and non-conservative ideals and beliefs. Many artists who are considered “elite,” despite having the means to live in the most desirable cities on earth, are, ironically, trapped in their own bubble world of adoration.
The art world is a strange place not because it’s so “progressive” and forward thinking - it’s really not - but because there is little reason and rigor once one becomes established. There is no checks-and-balances and the established can do and say almost whatever they want without (serious) repercussions. The “elite” art world is a world that is critical of the status quo, yet they aren’t critical of their own works – in fact, if criticism is put forward the “you just don’t get it” or “it’s subjective” is thrown in defense and all is OKAY. The adulation resumes. The lauded work is still lauded and detractors are put in the “that’s just your opinion” or "well the critics say otherwise so … "
The constant questioning of the status quo is like a child constantly asking “Why?” (If you’ve familiar with the Animaniacs, there’s a segment of a small child asking this to her mother whom she addresses as “Pretty Lady.” The small child, while cute, becomes thoroughly obnoxious, and even when “Pretty Lady” explains something, the child keeps asking “Why?” in the end not really learning anything because of this question – still stuck in the original stage, not actually advancing anywhere.)
I suggest reading books from Roger Kimball and Roger Scruton, They have written about the art world from a conservative perspective, sobering reality.
J
John_Savage
Guest
They are if you look at numbers and only in the recent past. Much of the best art is religious and/or not leftist if not conservative. This is true in movies, books, plays, and most obviously, the visual arts.
You also have to realize that critics tend to be the most leftist of all, so they’ll never admit this.
You also have to realize that critics tend to be the most leftist of all, so they’ll never admit this.
F
friardchips
Guest
I agree with this from the Truth perspective.
F
friardchips
Guest
I like this post too. I remember a programme or film with the: “Why, why why…” responses.
C
Captain_America
Guest
This is a really good question and I have wondered it more than once myself.
I agree with the idea that our society equates self-expression with creativity. This encourages those with expansive egos to do art.
Of course, modern art is largely self-centered and self-focused. . . so it attracts the egoists.
And egoists are not as likely to follow or obey even the most sensible rules! I suppose there may be a sense of loss of self-control if one follows rules.
BUT here is my contribution to this thread: contemporary art is about interior emotional expression. . . to the point where abstraction is valued and emotions are valued.
MOREOVER, contemporary art is SUPPOSED (by those in art) to be OPPOSED to something. Art is supposed to be political, in our times.
In the Middle Ages, an artist could take pride in a well-wrought statue of Jesus. In 2014, it has to be a deeply emotional push at a social institution or shared value.
Hence, they’re largely lefty.
I agree with the idea that our society equates self-expression with creativity. This encourages those with expansive egos to do art.
Of course, modern art is largely self-centered and self-focused. . . so it attracts the egoists.
And egoists are not as likely to follow or obey even the most sensible rules! I suppose there may be a sense of loss of self-control if one follows rules.
BUT here is my contribution to this thread: contemporary art is about interior emotional expression. . . to the point where abstraction is valued and emotions are valued.
MOREOVER, contemporary art is SUPPOSED (by those in art) to be OPPOSED to something. Art is supposed to be political, in our times.
In the Middle Ages, an artist could take pride in a well-wrought statue of Jesus. In 2014, it has to be a deeply emotional push at a social institution or shared value.
Hence, they’re largely lefty.
F
friardchips
Guest
Truly so. In the Middle Ages everything political was** painted or sculpted as was religion and kings and Queens - painting and sculpture were the mediums used instead of photography - however, if one was to oppose in the same way that artists might oppose the general grain of accepted political strains now, one might have been deemed a traitor and so condemned to death.
G
Gordon_Sims
Guest
I think a big part of if is that the people in charge of the media are leftists, and it’s much easier for a left-leaning artist to be successful than one who espouses conservative viewpoints. I have friends (writers, artists, actors, musicians) who have lost jobs, lost scholarships and been harassed out of various university programs because they were openly conservative. The same thing has happened to friends trying to enter journalism and teaching.
T
TheLiberator
Guest
This frightens me, since I’d like to work in independent and arthouse cinema. But money is no object when it comes to helping people. Instead of espousing my political views openly, I’ll just fork over a lot of cash to pro-life groups and other organizations which share my views, rather than doing it out in the open.
C
Cat
Guest
Are we talking about artists who paint/sculpt/draw, etc.?
Or are we using the term to encompass all those who are in the arts; e.g., entertainment media (actors, directors, producers, stage hands, makeup, etc.), musicians, dancers, writers, etc.?
Thank you.
If we are talking about the entertainment media, we have to remember that there are many tens of thousands of employees in this industry who are unseen and unheard by the public, but they are there nevertheless. My daughter is one of these. And many of these people are not “leftists” at all. If their political and social views were figured into the total of “artists”, I think we would see a much more even distribution of “leftists” and “rightists” (or whatever you want to call them).
Or are we using the term to encompass all those who are in the arts; e.g., entertainment media (actors, directors, producers, stage hands, makeup, etc.), musicians, dancers, writers, etc.?
Thank you.
If we are talking about the entertainment media, we have to remember that there are many tens of thousands of employees in this industry who are unseen and unheard by the public, but they are there nevertheless. My daughter is one of these. And many of these people are not “leftists” at all. If their political and social views were figured into the total of “artists”, I think we would see a much more even distribution of “leftists” and “rightists” (or whatever you want to call them).
F
friardchips
Guest
Yes, but same goes for them in the Middle Ages. Maybe players and directors might have escaped a hanging if presenting a political agenda. Unless any underlying political agenda could be disguised with themes of love sprinkled with humour.
Yes, the whole thread stems from statistics. Maybe it is different in the U.S to the U.K but in this country leftist agendas tend to be on the cards. However, it is an unfortunate state of affairs that with statistics come major generalisations because how can all people be counted in for the count? However, I am allowed to speak on this matter because I went to an art Uni. in London and it was definitely LEFT. No uncertain terms there!
- Status