Can conservatives make genuine art? - Page 3

Maybe I'm close-minded, but let's call it "discrminating": when we begin to consider video games to be "art" in the same way we consider Shakespeare, Mozart, Da Vinci, and Kubrick (or, fuck, for that matter, Alan Moore, the Clash, Mapplethorpe, and Tim Burton) to be "art," it's time to re-evaluate Western society.

It's clear that Bush supporters are capable of aesthetically appealing things on a surface level - I've seen those neat-o recruitment ads -, but let's be clear on this - pretty images don't necessarily equal "art."

Card can call himself anything he wants to, but if you can read through his columns and maintain the idea that he's not conservative, you've definitely got some pretty unorthodox ideas on what qualifies one for that designation.

If his columns weren't enough, Orson Scott Card's also a Mormon (read his work with Mormon history and mythology in mind, and see how it casts a lot of his stuff in a whole new light). They're not exactly the most liberal group, generally speaking.

I think we have ourselves a true conservative artist here. The man has put out some good - bordering on great - fiction, especially in his less-read short stories.

I've always considered trolling message boards to be the most rational of all activities, practiced by only the most intelligent individuals in any society. LEL, you are a shining beacon of conservatism and reason. I salute you.

Let's just say that Riven's story is comparable to LOTR in many ways.

Word of the day - "derivative".

Not necessarily. True, the whole language simulation was done by Tolkien first. However, the themes going on with Atrus and his father, while different, were just as well blended in with the story as LOTR. Of course, this could be for a different thread.

Is it really all that deplorable to be a conservative? So what if Raimi and Tolkien were conservative that hardly has much to do with their art. And since when can conservatives not be interested in the environment?

Art isn't always about exploring taboo subjects. It may be just finding the right way to play a certain note on the piano or guitar, or a drum beat that keeps popping into your head. What about camera angles? Light distrubution? These are hardly liberal exclusive ways of making art.

.........

I'd say camera angles and technical skill on an instrument fall under "craftsmanship," which is usually only a requirement for great art. Great art tends to push things forward or achieve some sort of level of originality using pre-existing forms. It doesn't necessarily have to do with "taboo" subjects, but it requires forward thinking at least in the medium. Usually, if you're forward thinking in terms of one thing, you'll generally be more open-minded toward other things. Again, economic conservatism doesn't enter into this argument at all, as far as I can see. Social conservatism, however, does.

There are certainly exceptions when social conservatives have created great art, but I'd argue that they at least had SOME liberal streak in terms of their art - something that allowed them to deviate from what was considered typical in their medium in their era (even if this meant looking far back into the classic Greeks and Romans). And this would be indicative of some level of liberal thinking.

And, LEL, I have whinged about nothing. And we weren't talking about the respective rational or irrational tendencies of conservatives and liberals, so your patently silly post was most decidedly not on topic.

Are all conservatives Christian? are all Christians conservative? Eddie Vedder is a Christian, is he conservative?

*Sigh*

Here's the thing, art is subjective right? So wouldn't great art also be subjective? So whatever DaveB defines as art, probably goes only so far. And thus, this whole argument, is pretty much a waste of space considering some people view art different than others. To think one has some kind of handle on knowing what great is or isn't every single time, is kidding themselves. Sure some cases should be obvious, but then maybe it's only obvious within out culture and considered crap in another? Certainly possible. And to think one ideaology is the bastion of great art is also ridiculous.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to more people, especially here on this movie board where some people think The Hulk is great art and others think it is deplorable crap. Same goes for any other movie that divides people.

you are correct sir!

Completely wrong assumption. One need not like art to recognize it as such.

I don't think anyone ever made this argument.

Christian fundamentalists, however, are almost without exception, socially conservative. This goes for Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists, as well. Again, there's a sharp divide between economic and social conservatism. Furthermore, being a social conservative doesn't mean that you'd necessarily vote for Bush (if you happen to be a fundamentalist of a non-Christian stripe).

Delude and Devin are both sort of right. "Great" art is a matter of subjectivity in terms of how we consider art created today. But, in the long run, time is the judge. If a piece of art is still recognized as great by a sizable number of people 100 years down the line, chances are it's at least pretty good. If it's still remembered and recognized as good 500 years down the line, chances are it's great on some level.

There are people who hate Shakespeare. That's a valid opinion. However, I don't think it's valid to NOT consider his plays and poems great art because you personally don't like them. Public opinion DOES ultimately have much bearing on "greatness," probably moreso than personal opinion (though I think it's wise to avoid public opinion as criteria in judging any current art, so we can avoid canonizing John Grisham and Britney Spears - whose work will likely be forgotten in 100 years).

So when we're talking about great art, we're talking about stuff that's stood the test of time. And what has stood the test of time? Largely, things that have broken with tradition, pushed forms forward, and had some element that had not been explored before. Social conservatism (in the modern sense) is rooted entirely in the recent past - specifically, it strives to maintain the status quo or push things backward. This is not a tendency you see in artists whose work is remembered. There are certainly exceptions, but the percentages are not on their side.

Sure, but how often does that happen really?


We all have biases and they color of view very much and sometimes, just sometimes we just won't see good art. Just like movies, some can see a certain movie as absolutely spectacular and others can see it as totaly crap. Same way art is subjective, you've heard that a million times. So trying to come up with some sort of defining standard is a waste of your valuable time.

All the time, just not among internet nerds.