CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Can conservatives make genuine art?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can conservatives make genuine art? - Page 2

post #51 of 117
11/24/04 at 4:19pm
Thread Starter 
Mel Gibson's probably a conservative, sure. But I sure as hell wouldn't call Bono one.
Reply
post #52 of 117
11/24/04 at 4:25pm
Anya, you're making the typical mistake in equating religious people with conservatism. Suprise - there are christian liberals. They're the christians who care about the world, not just other christians.
Reply
post #53 of 117
11/24/04 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Anya, you're making the typical mistake in equating religious people with conservatism. Suprise - there are christian liberals. They're the christians who care about the world, not just other christians.
AKA, the ones who actually follow the teachings of Jesus.
Reply
post #54 of 117
11/24/04 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordling
You're confusing communist with left-wing, as most conservatives are prone to do. That's okay, though. As long as one of us lefties is here to point out WE'RE NOT COMMUNISTS, YOU JERK, it'll be fine.
I am mixing Communism with "left wing", just as people in this thread are mixing "racist" with Conservative and therefore - right wing.

Nutters don't do well in art because they are ... well ... nutters. And, given our all invasive media, these days nutters tend to get pointed out and laughed out of work early on.

I've always thought this is pretty much self-evident.
Reply
post #55 of 117
11/24/04 at 4:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel
How about Bono from U2 and Mel Gibson. Both are very religous which tend for conservative thought. Bono isn't the stereotypical conservative but I think he falls under the umbrella. Gibson certainly would. While I thought POTC wasn't that good I admire the effort and thought it was a beautiful film to look at.
Please re-read the thread. Being religious does not make you "conservative." With the social causes he supports, Bono certainly does NOT "fall under the umbrella." Gibson might, but even that could be arguable. While he's certainly religiously conservative in much the same way Christian fundamentalists are, I have no idea where Gibson stands on issues of national policy, economics, gay rights, etc.

Look, if you're able to look at religion and apply it in a new and original way in your art (C.S. Lewis, Scorsese and Kazantzakis, Rushdie, even Bono), you may very well consider yourself extremely religious, but not conservative. At least, not in the way that the religious right is.

Quote:
It's bit narrow minded to think that just because someone believes something you don't that they cannot make art. I find it hard to believe that all Hollywood movies were made by liberals. That all paintings, sculptures, or poetry were made by "liberals".
No, just the notable examples of those in the last century or so. And since "conservative" now is not necessarily the same thing it was in the 1800s, that's really the only era we can tackle.

Quote:
And if you think being a conservative is just a homophobic, bible thumper or rascist you are just wrong. That be like saying all liberals are baby killing drug addicts who want to just take from the rich and give to the lazy poor.
I don't think anyone really believes that. But would you concede that, percentage-wise, you're certainly more likely to be a bible-thumper and a racist if you are one?
Reply
post #56 of 117
11/24/04 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange
I am mixing Communism with "left wing", just as people in this thread are mixing "racist" with Conservative and therefore - right wing.

Nutters don't do well in art because they are ... well ... nutters. And, given our all invasive media, these days nutters tend to get pointed out and laughed out of work early on.

I've always thought this is pretty much self-evident.
You mean nutters like Leni Riefenstahl, Ezra Pound, Roald Dahl, Charles Bukowski, and Richard Wagner (all, by some accounts, racists, sexists, or anti-semites), or Frida Kahlo, Pablo Picasso, and Bertolt Brecht (all communists in some form or another)?

As said before, having distasteful views doesn't necessarily make for better or worse art; however, having unwavering, moralistic views and unquestioningly supporting authority and the idea of biblical inerrancy seems to make for worse art.
Reply
post #57 of 117
11/24/04 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Anya, you're making the typical mistake in equating religious people with conservatism. Suprise - there are christian liberals. They're the christians who care about the world, not just other christians.
Don't you make the same mistake by labeling conservatives as-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Who wants to watch a film where the heroes are the CEOs who rake in the money while firing American workers so they can pay a Filipino lad one dollar a day to do the same work? Who wants a painting that glorifies Bull Conner hosing protesting blacks?
I would say the vast majority of conservatives aren't CEO's or don't support using oversea child labor. That's painting with a big brush too. And I brought up Gibson because I would say he leans more conservative. His stance on the stem cell issue lends me to believe he is pro life. He may be liberal on other issues and that is the problem with this topic. What type of conservative can be an artist wasn't defined.


I think this topoc is a bunch of b.s because anyone can make art but if you put it out there you should define what it is to be a conservative. Just because you are conservative doesn't mean you are closed to new ideas or differant ways of looking at things. A religous conservative maybe fiscally liberal and a fiscal conservative maybe socially liberal.

Quote:
I don't think anyone really believes that. But would you concede that, percentage-wise, you're certainly more likely to be a bible-thumper and a racist if you are one?
No. If you have stats I'd love to see them. But I don't thin racism is dominant by bible thumpers in the red states. Just look at big liberal cities like LA, Chicago, NY, Philly over the years and they have had many major race related problems.
Reply
post #58 of 117
11/24/04 at 5:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel
I would say the vast majority of conservatives aren't CEO's or don't support using oversea child labor. That's painting with a big brush too. And I brought up Gibson because I would say he leans more conservative. His stance on the stem cell issue lends me to believe he is pro life. He may be liberal on other issues and that is the problem with this topic. What type of conservative can be an artist wasn't defined.
You don't have to be a CEO, it's about values. Modern conservatives DO support sending jobs overseas where children get paid. It's not a misconseption, so no, I didn't make the same mistake as you.
Reply
post #59 of 117
11/24/04 at 5:49pm
Can conservatives make genuine art?

Yes.

Do they?

Rarely.
Reply
post #60 of 117
11/24/04 at 6:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
You mean nutters like Leni Riefenstahl, Ezra Pound, Roald Dahl, Charles Bukowski, and Richard Wagner (all, by some accounts, racists, sexists, or anti-semites), or Frida Kahlo, Pablo Picasso, and Bertolt Brecht (all communists in some form or another)?
Most of the above are from eras when such forms of hard left and right thinking were less frowned upon. Could most of these have made it today? I doubt it.

Quote:
As said before, having distasteful views doesn't necessarily make for better or worse art; however, having unwavering, moralistic views and unquestioningly supporting authority and the idea of biblical inerrancy seems to make for worse art.
And how many people absolutely meet all the criteria listed above? I shouldn’t think we'd have a large selection to choose from. If a Catholic priest can’t keep his hands of little children (thus instantly failing your test) – what chance is there that anyone else will meet them? (As an aside: there have been many artist priests).

Basically your argument boils down to a truism: [bad] robots can't make art.
Reply
post #61 of 117
11/24/04 at 7:49pm
A slap in the face for anyone who mentions John Milius. <grin>
Reply
post #62 of 117
11/25/04 at 4:06am
What I wanna know is where did Nordling get that bit about Sam Raimi? I coulda sworn I read some article about him a few months ago where he talked about sending his kids to Hebrew school, but maybe he had a change of heart sometime since then. Hmm.
Reply
post #63 of 117
11/25/04 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange
A slap in the face for anyone who mentions John Milius. <grin>
Why I almost did *lol*?
Reply
post #64 of 117
11/25/04 at 9:04am
I think that Leni Riefenstahl could be described as an artist with very conservative views. She was Hitler’s personal favourite documentary maker and was commissioned to make a film of Hitler landing in Nuremberg. With this basic treatment she created a documentary which could, despite its subject matter, be classed as a work of art. The opening shot of the cloud cover as it breaks to reveal Nuremberg cathedral is possibly an image that will live me forever. I think that while some conservatives may be lacking a breadth of ideas many can eulogise about their given subject with incredible power.

Then of course there is the poetry and Art of William Blake a man who was a strong advocate of Christian values who allowed his religious vigor and zeal to pour into his writing and art.
Reply
post #65 of 117
11/25/04 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker
Why I almost did *lol*?
With a directorial CV boasting cinematic diamonds such as Red Dawn, Farewell to the King and Conan the Barbarian* even Perry Mason would have difficulty establishing a trail of evidence between Milius and "art".

Browsing through his writing credits on IMDB I almost gave him an extra star for his involvement with Apocalypse Now, but then I spotted 1941 and all thoughts of charity were quickly banished from my mind.

*I know some of you guys have a soft spot for CtB but let's be reasonable about this. <grin>
Reply
post #66 of 117
11/25/04 at 12:48pm
I think we're getting stuck on anecdotal cases that don't prove things one way or the other.

Rather than looking at people who embody liberalism or conservatism to varying (and arguable) degrees, why not stay focused on the ideologies themselves?

And with that in mind, I ask the CHUDservatives, what is it inherent in the Conservative ideology that would lean toward art and creativity? It's not a baited or loaded question. Just a genuine inquiry.
Reply
post #67 of 117
11/25/04 at 1:08pm
I fail to see the point in moving from one debate that results in us all getting stuck and proving nothing to another which will result in us all getting stuck and proving nothing.

Debates of this nature are bad enough with only one qualitative element, this has three: “How do you define a Conservative?”, “How do you define Art?” and “Do they mix?”

We could type away until the fires of doomsday lick our asses and we would still be no further toward arriving at a satisfactory answer.
Reply
post #68 of 117
11/25/04 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Robinson
I think we're getting stuck on anecdotal cases that don't prove things one way or the other.

Rather than looking at people who embody liberalism or conservatism to varying (and arguable) degrees, why not stay focused on the ideologies themselves?

And with that in mind, I ask the CHUDservatives, what is it inherent in the Conservative ideology that would lean toward art and creativity? It's not a baited or loaded question. Just a genuine inquiry.
I just don't get the connection with Conservative ideology not equalling art and creativity. Does thinking conservatively about social and economic issues stop that conservative from dreaming? Does it stop them from thinking of new ways of doing things? Can a conservative paint a landscape that will blow you away or design a building that is like a piece of art?

How does believing in lower tax rates, lesser government, opposing gay marriage stop this?
Reply
post #69 of 117
11/25/04 at 1:46pm
In order to break the surface of this argument one must accept, without question, the barmy idea that a “Conservative” (euphemism for “bad person”) can be Conservative 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year, throughout his life.

Conservatives (who are never defined), it seems, are incapable of ever demonstrating even the remotest shred of non-Conservative thought (which is never defined) and therefore “art” (which is never defined) hovers eternally beyond their yearning grasp.
Reply
post #70 of 117
11/25/04 at 2:58pm
I think we're getting hung up on minutae.

Here's the gist, plain and simple: What kind of person, regardless of whether they are conservative 24 hours a day, would gravitate to the a conservative ideology?

Now, it's insulting to say it would ONLY be a close-minded, or bigoted, or racist, or even an uncreative individual. Obviously, people from all walks of live embrace true conservatism, and even former liberals switch sides. So you can't just paint ALL conservatives with a gigantic brush.

HOWEVER, there must be some characteristics that are generally present in most conservatives that set the stage for tem to drift to that way of thinking. What I am asking - and I'm asking CHUDservatives because they should know best here - is which, if any, of these characteristics that are TYPICAL of a conservative - but not necessarily true for them all - would lend themselves to the creation of art, as we know it.
Reply
post #71 of 117
11/25/04 at 3:46pm
It seems to me that imbueing a concept as ethereal as art to "liberal" and conservative" values is a woefully shortsighted task. And I don't that's a profoundly insightful observation on my part. Art can be an exercise in conformity as much as rebellion; modern fashion is a good example: wearing blue-jeans moved from a symbol of rebellion, to a mindless act of conformity through the falsity of modern individuality in just over half a century. Art as conformity, when taken to extreme, can become an obsession with perfection; this is exactly what is so fascinating about Nazism — the essential workings behind Hitler's fascism were artistic — right down to Abert Speer, the SS uniforms, and the ritualized parades. In fact, the fascism was THE political philosophy of intellectuals and artists in the early 1900's.

Note: I'm NOT equating "conservative" art with Nazism.
Reply
post #72 of 117
11/25/04 at 3:57pm
True, but I don't think "art" itself is what's being discussed here, or at least not primarily. I think it's more about the creation of said art, and what individual values best foster that creation.
Reply
post #73 of 117
11/25/04 at 4:46pm
Values may affect the artist and art; but the ability to produce isn't affected by values per say. Art is quite often a reflection of cultural status-quo — nothing could be more conservative. Consider the arts of ancient civilizations such Rome or Aztec; these cultural arts usually reflect social values and everyday life; the glories of the empire, the working life, the conquests of kings and generals.

There is a popular concept that art has to be boundary-pushing social commentary, but it's a false concept; the fact that many artists are portrayed as having a particular mindset is simply a reflection modern views on contemporary artistic culture.
Reply
post #74 of 117
11/25/04 at 4:55pm
In other words, the question has baggage. We see art as boundry-pushing and contraversial, and conclude that liberals — who by definition push boundaries — are the more natural artists. Popular culture and media reinforce this, with pat representations the artist as a tortured individual or rebellious social button-pusher, while focusing the most absurd dada when examing the output of contemporary artists.
Reply
post #75 of 117
11/25/04 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Warren
In other words, the question has baggage. We see art as boundry-pushing and contraversial, ...
I could pick a fair sized sample of people and reasonably expect many to agree with neither of those criteria.
Reply
post #76 of 117
11/25/04 at 6:25pm
Art is often a reflection of status quo, but wouldn't it be more "liberal" than "conservative" to actually reflect on the status quo in the first place? Isn't a tenet of conservatism the acceptance and embrace of that status quo, or even moreso a regression to "traditional" values? I mean, there are people who do that within the art world. Many schools of art and contemporary movements are often a redux of a previous period, hence the myriad "neo" schools of art. However, rather than just being a rote regurgitation or homage to these schools, these new takes on old genres set themselves apart with a different tone, spin, or attitude that just wasn't there the first time around. In other words, even in their conservatism, there was a liberal element of evolution present.
Reply
post #77 of 117
11/26/04 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcujoI
I can tell you for fact that Malick is extremely conservative. His art might not show it, but he himself is very conservative.
***********

Born on November 30, 1943 in Ottawa, Illinois. Eldest of three boys, Chris and Larry.

Grew up in Oklahoma and Texas.

Graduated from Harvard University with Phi Beta Kappa honours. As a Rhodes scholar, he studied philosophy at Magdalen College, Oxford University, merry old England.

Worked as a philosophy teacher at MIT and journalist for The New Yorker and Life magazine.

Malick's translation of Heidegger's Vom Wesen des Grundes into English, The Essence of Reasons, was published by Northwestern University Press. The book has the original German on the left-hand pages and Malick's translation into English on the right-hand pages, presumably so that the bilingual reader can make up her own mind regarding the veracity of his translation. This practice seems paralleled by Malick's presentation of opposing viewpoints in his films while leaving the viewer to make up his own mind regarding his preferred viewpoint.

***************

Please.
Reply
post #78 of 117
11/26/04 at 11:14am
While we are on the subject of anecdotes, and in response to the person that stated that extremists like Riefenstahl, Picasso, Wagner, etc wouldn't make it today, I present Jose Saramago. Portuguese, Nobel Prize winner for literature with the novel "Blindness" or "Ensaios sobre a cegueira". Also extremely, overwhelmingly, Communist. I'm talking real hardline. Granted, in Portugal communists have a much less negative connotation, due to them being majorly responsible for the democratic revolution in 1974, so he could develop in a positive environment even with his views. Still, it's an anecdote that shows the possibility of artists with extreme views (at least extreme LEFTIST views) being accepted in this day and age.
Reply
post #79 of 117
11/27/04 at 12:18pm
Nice little bio Nelson that about sums the man up as being a genius and a paradox.

It's nice to see some cooler heads emerge in this thread that were not necessarily conservative or liberal.

Malick is an interesting model in that he doesn't make his politics or really a lot of his personal life public interest. He makes his films and lets it stand at that. This would be my preferred choice of operation as an artist...but thats just me.
Reply
post #80 of 117
11/28/04 at 5:23am
Some body had to mention this

Vincent Gallo, Buffalo 66' (hides)
Reply
post #81 of 117
11/30/04 at 11:22pm
Forget Gallo, it's usually mention of Ted Nugent in these threads that sets Faraci's teeth a-grindin'.

Anyway, I agree with Adam - by modern standards, "art" is thought to be boundary-pushing and controversial, for good or ill. You take away those trappings and you get, I dunno, Creed or Thomas Kinkade or Phantom of the Opera - all of which require varying degrees of talent to produce and result in varying degrees of enjoyment, but to me they tend to have the reek of populist pap about them. Certainly Joe Sixpack would call it "good", but aside from the artistic talent it takes to make the painting or the music or the film, if it doesn't "say" anything, what good is it? You might as well have Muzak on the stereo or "Dogs Playing Poker" hanging over the mantle for all that.
Reply
post #82 of 117
12/1/04 at 11:57am
It's funny that Malick is getting all the heat when there are plenty of conservatives in Hollywood - Sam Raimi for instance. I think art can be made by anybody and while their political beliefs may steer the direction in certain cases, I think it has little or nothing to do with their ability.
Reply
post #83 of 117
12/2/04 at 8:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smilin' Jack Ruby
It's funny that Malick is getting all the heat when there are plenty of conservatives in Hollywood - Sam Raimi for instance.
Where did you hear it.
Reply
post #84 of 117
12/2/04 at 11:06pm
I think naturally, those who are attracted to conservative ideals tend to be more closed minded, but art is merely self-expression. Just because you hold ignorant beliefs doesn't mean you can't create art out of them, it's just less likely that you will do so and even more unlikely that it will have universal appeal.
Reply
post #85 of 117
12/2/04 at 11:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambers
Where did you hear it.
About Raimi? That's public knoweldge. Easily. Hell, I've read interviews where he casually mentions his support of Bush.

Sad, maybe, but true.
Reply
post #86 of 117
12/3/04 at 12:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambers
Where did you hear it.
I love how that question is phrased. It sounds like the words of someone on the brink of exploding into a fit of homicidal rage who is desperately trying to hold themselves back.
Reply
post #87 of 117
12/3/04 at 7:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEL
'Naturally'. See, when liberals respond to opposing ideas by metaphorically sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming their heads off so they don't have to hear, they have no business describing others as 'closed-minded' and 'ignorant'. If they were brave enough to recognise how closed-minded and ignorant their behavior makes them, they might be onto something.
I calls it how I sees it.
Reply
post #88 of 117
12/3/04 at 2:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambers
Where did you hear it.
Sam Raimi donated to the Bush campaign. Also word has it he's a born-again.

He answers my question, though, because if any superhero movie can be called art, SPIDER-MAN 2 is one.
Reply
post #89 of 117
12/5/04 at 2:58pm
The most obvious example of a conservative making true art, at least to me, would be Vincent Gallo. I don't know if anyone has mentioned him yet, but he's an outspoken conservative and I don't see how you could classify anything he produces as anything less than art. You can certainly argue the quality of his art, but all of his endeavors, whether painting, film, or writing are deeply personal expressions. He's certainly not producing these works for the cash.

I suppose it also depends on your definition of artistic expression. Do you mean a conservative who makes art or someone that makes art with a conservative content? Certainly, the content of Gallo's movies is fairly liberal, but his politics are highly conservative.
Reply
post #90 of 117
12/6/04 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Work
The most obvious example of a conservative making true art, at least to me, would be Vincent Gallo. I don't know if anyone has mentioned him yet,
*cough*

Anyways,

Being a conservative doesn't necessary mean that you make conservative films and Vice Versa. For example, Forrest Gump is a conservative and xenophopic movie, yet Tom Hanks and Zemekis are Democrats.
Reply
post #91 of 117
12/7/04 at 1:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maus
On the subject of Christian musicians: Although I hate Christian Radio, Christian bookstores and other expressions of the tribal mentality, I take heart in knowing that the sort of mediocrity that isolationist perspective encourages is not the sum and total of Christian artistry at work in the world. I love Johnny Cash, Flannery O'Connor, Madeline L'Engle, Tolkien, etc...
There is a huge difference between one's religious and political beliefs. Tolkien was Catholic, but come on, have you read Lord of the Rings? It seems pretty liberal to me. The environmentalism, anti-war views. Hell, I detect a bit of feminism in the old professor.
Reply
post #92 of 117
12/7/04 at 4:30pm
Apologies, Gambers. I figured someone would have thought of Gallo before me, but once the post start becoming repetitive I just skip to the bottom and add my two cents.

I didn't know Malick was a conservative, not that it matters, but I was kind of surprised to read it. He and Gallo, in my opinion, are two of the few artists working in film today, if you can actually say Malick works in film, and that they both express conservative political views defies the standard.
Reply
post #93 of 117
12/7/04 at 4:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange
I not sure there's much substance to this theory since it springs forth so many exceptions and contradictions. In SF, Ray Bradbury and Robert A. Heinlein are not far from being the most hardcore of conservatives. I regard both as "artists", the former could even be considered "great".
...I'd give the title of "master of all that is Sci-Fi" to Heinlein...but that's just me
Reply
post #94 of 117
12/7/04 at 5:05pm
I think art is the most important, meaningful, and noble thing that humans do (well, outside of saving the lives of other humans). It will be the enduring legcay of our race long after we're gone.

Money? Success? Taxes? Meaningless next to great art.

How many conservatives feel the same?

On the other hand, we have Spider-Man 2 and the absolute genius of Frank Zappa.
Reply
post #95 of 117
12/7/04 at 5:40pm
Heinlein wasn't a conservative, he was a libertarian (and boy, does it ever show). He was active in Democrat campaigns in California in the '30s before he started writing.

Frank Zappa? He hated Republicans. He was a capitalist, but not a conservative.
Reply
post #96 of 117
12/7/04 at 6:44pm
Right, but he still self-indentified as a conservative (though he kind of defined the term in his own way, calling it "Practical Conservatism" if I remember correctly) in the Real Frank Zappa Book. The philiosophy is definitely along libertarian lines though, and we was very anti-republican and anti-religious right.

I guess we're not really talking about libertarians though in the context of this discussion, so I concede the point. I simply couldn't think of another conservative artist who hadn't already been mentioned in the thread, and that probably says more about me than it does about conservative artists.
Reply
post #97 of 117
12/8/04 at 1:31am
Zappa may have seen himself as a conservative along the lines of "one who conserves" or something (I've yet to read the Real Frank Zappa Book), but he certainly wasn't a Conservative the way Sam Raimi or, God forbid, Orson Scott Card are Conservatives. I can't imagine the type of guy who'd support Bush would also write Heavenly Bank Account.

Not that he'd be big on Democrats either. He was not a fan of Al Gore's proselytizing wife, I remember that much.
Reply
post #98 of 117
12/16/04 at 11:29pm
Found: conservative art!
Reply
post #99 of 117
12/16/04 at 11:30pm
http://patriotart.com/images/DemHalloween.jpg

That one made me laugh.

The rest made me cry.
Reply
post #100 of 117
12/17/04 at 1:28am
The creators of the Myst series, some of the most beautiful games I have ever seen, are ardent Bush supporters.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Can conservatives make genuine art?