Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think most would agree that there is no real creative nature in Hollywood and the music community any more. It is all the same mindless crap recycled over and over these days
There may not be in Hollywood, but there is at Festivals in Vancouver, Toronto, Berlin, TriBeCa, etc.
If you got into some of the Indie Cinema and music, you'd find your niche and you can pretty much tune out the mainstream.
I wouldn't say liberals are more creative. They are more likely to pursue a career in something artistic though. In fact, I got into an argument with my father (a conservative) a few months before he died about what I should go to college for. He wanted me to be a major in engineering or business. It does seem though that even the conservatives in entertainment are more liberal than other conservatives. In fact, I'd consider most of them libertarians. Even the Blue Collar Comedy guys aren't exactly conservatives. I wouldn't say it's about creativity. It's more about who is willing to take the chance of trying to earn a living of art or some form of entertainment. I'd say liberals (too many to name) and libertarians (ie. Penn and Teller) are more likely to do so.
I take the more moderate view as well. There are certainly right-wingers in Hollywood, but they are more libertarian than strictly conservative. Clint Eastwood and John Milnus (the guy who wrote and directed Red Dawn) are examples. Minus has called himself an "anarchist" and Clint Eastwood has made a film that supported assisted suicide.
I take the view that a traditional conservative will probably be a lousy artist. Michael Medved's tastes in films would create a culture of mindless pap and the few conservatives willing to stomach violence and sex in a movie are usually only tolerant of established movies like Godfather and would almost certainly call the next Godfather trash.
You can still be right-wing and a good entertainer. There is tons of potential in satirizing political correctness, socialism, preaching tolerance while being intolerant of anyone who doesn't share your exact views, and compassion to the point of stupidity, but you need a sense of humor and not throw a fit if a nipple or curse word makes an appearance.
Also, I fail to see how all movies made by liberal producers and directors and starring liberal actors are automatically good. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle asks serious philosophical questions?
Or what about modern art? I somehow doubt that paintings of cigarette butts, pickled dead cows, painting with bodily fluids, and photographic exhibitions of bowel movements reveal some kind of great truth or enlightment. It's the ultimate in post-modern (excuse the pun) s--t:
"It doesn't say anything, doesn't mean anything, and it is not even pleasant to look at."
"You don't get it."
"What is there to get? It's ugly and pointless. I don't see the point in it.
"That's the point. There is no point and it's not supposed to be pretty. It's ugly and pointless. Possibly a statement about modern life?"
"Or the work of a self-important acid casualty who fears losing his NEA grants and is making me reconsider my position on Jesse Helms."
__________________________________________________ ___
I have one theory why many people involved in the arts tend to be liberal. I have previous mentioned that it is hard to be truly edgy or creative as a traditional conservative, but considering how much mindless pap comes out of Hollywood and that many independent films are actually pretty shallow and try to be shocking for the sake of shock*, I doubt that is entirely the case.
My theory is that it is extremely hard to make a living as a director or actor or writer or artist. You can make a lot of money or spend most of your career busing tables while you hope to get a break, but it is almost impossible to be a middle-class entertainer. One or the other. Many entertainers see people far less talented than themselves make it big and they realize that life isn't fair and many grow contemptous of the media industry that allows the hacks to grow rich and even towards the market which feeds their careers. So you have people who were at the bottom of the ladder, who watched many undeserving people make it, and then one day they are a box office draw or bestseller. Not only do they carry their pre-fame baggage and their experiences as a struggling actor/writer/musician, but they also deal with studio executives and agents who don't care about artistic merit or quality and only about the bottom line and will make movies with useless hacks like Paully Shore if it makes money. They are vulgar capitalism personified. Plus you also have insecurity and guilt as well. I've spent some time in Los Angeles and the distribution of well is pretty extreme, it is not uncommon to see extreme poverty within walking distance of extreme wealth. A lot of actors feel guilty that they now have so much when so many people have so little and they often speak about how necessiary it is to give to the poor and to support welfare programs. They may or may not practice what they preach, but it dulls their guilt nonetheless. A lot of actors are insecure and believe they might not be as good as everyone says they are and seem to believe that they are fooling everyone. A lot of people are drawn to the arts because of this insecurity (if entertainers were better adjusted on average, then why are there so many suicides, drug problems, alcohol problems, cults, and divorces than the average population), this insecurity helps feed their guilt for having so much. If they think that they aren't that good of an actor and that they really don't deserve their wealth, they are probably more likely to subscribe to political ideologies that praise equality.
*As a guy who is well versed in porno, I find movies that insert actual, graphic sex to be cynical ploys to attract controversy. Getting your, uh, manhood sucked on camera in your otherwise s--tty movie only shows that the best thing you can come up with (no pun intended) is something that zero budget f--k flicks have been doing for decades.
Thru all pages of this thread the word "entertainment" pops up continually.
That is exactly my point in the OP, that conservatives are only interested in entertainment.
Hollywood is not the only source of movies. Believe it or not!
I certainly hope that most people don't consider anyone who appears in a movie is original, creative, or talented. Some posters have provided lists of conservatives in movies. What's the point?
Thru all pages of this thread the word "entertainment" pops up continually.
That is exactly my point in the OP, that conservatives are only interested in entertainment.
Hollywood is not the only source of movies. Believe it or not!
I certainly hope that most people don't consider anyone who appears in a movie is original, creative, or talented. Some posters have provided lists of conservatives in movies. What's the point?
Now I get it. You want a pretenious circle jerk. You want people to come in and agree with you and stroke you off while indulging your political biases.
Guess what? Much of all art is meant to entertain in some form or another. Believe it or not?
Here's what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visvaldis
Are liberals more creative than conservatives?
I don’t think many conservatives can be found in the areas of art, music, literature, and film, probably believing that only crazy people could have an interest in such things. Mostly, in such fields one will find liberals, of which many have struggled with various hardships. Probably conservatives would have little understanding why anyone would pursue such a field unless it soon produces financial rewards.
Conservatives would more likely be involved in religion, business and finance, wherever there’s money to be made.
People connected with film usually are liberal, although some conservatives may be found in the business end of the film industry. Would conservatives even consider acting or directing as a profession?
I doubt that conservatives see little value in any art, music, literature, or film, and maybe regard those who do as lunatics that waste time, energy, and money. Generally, the conservatives prefer art, literature, music, and film only for their entertainment value.
Here’s my take on the conservatives:
Literature: the Bible, books about politics, military, history, financial matters, business management, or run-of-the-mill (wholesome) fiction. Virtually nothing that deals with social criticism or philosophical ideas.
Film: Shallow, run-of-the-mill (wholesome) Hollywood movies, no interest in foreign, experimental or underground film.
Art: Something to scoff at. Probably no interest whatsoever, other than art as investment that appreciates, eventually producing a financial gain.
Music: Shallow, run-of-the-mill pop music, religious music, maybe some classical. No interest in any music that is out of the ordinary.
I think that most conservatives would rather spend their free time not with art, music, literature, or film, but as active particiapants of religion, and passionately dedicated spectators of football and basketball.
Please tell me how liberals are somehow able to get some kind of special meaning out of these various forms of media. I'd like to know. I guess on your planet books about history, war, and economics are purely for entertainment value or whatever your pointless point was.
What exactly is your point? You seem to say that conservatives or whatever don't mix their learning and their entertainment. I know it doesn't matter what anyone here says, you have made up your mind. It is only art if you deem it art, an actor all of a sudden becomes creative when they appear in movies you like, music is only interesting if deem it so, literature is only worthy if you enjoy it. And another thing, I thought Shakespeare was pretty respected by conservatives. Oh, it's probably not real art anyways. It's not like his plays and poems were well-written, have solid story structure, influenced countless other works of art, and are rich in variety of themes. Plus Shakespeare never felt the need to tell everyone how superior he was and how his plays were NOT entertainment. They were to do no such thing as being enjoyable in any form. Art is only meant to made by douchebags and to be understood by douchebags who are smart enough to find hidden meanings in dildos glued to stuffed animals.
I want to know what is the music you listen to or the books you read or the movies you watch. I might wish to partake in these forbidden media. Although, I am afraid that I might find some of it enjoyable or entertaining, which is a complete no-no.
Oh, and I'll mention one conservative who is in plenty of independent movies. Vincent Gallo. He's right-wing to the core and is even a bit of a racist. I'm sure you'd love him because he's completely self-absorbed and in love with his own creativity and his position as an artist and his films are completely boring and brimming with affectation.
Are liberals more creative than conservatives?
I don’t think many conservatives can be found in the areas of art, music, literature, and film, probably believing that only crazy people could have an interest in such things. Mostly, in such fields one will find liberals, of which many have struggled with various hardships. Probably conservatives would have little understanding why anyone would pursue such a field unless it soon produces financial rewards.
Conservatives would more likely be involved in religion, business and finance, wherever there’s money to be made.
People connected with film usually are liberal, although some conservatives may be found in the business end of the film industry. Would conservatives even consider acting or directing as a profession?
I doubt that conservatives see little value in any art, music, literature, or film, and maybe regard those who do as lunatics that waste time, energy, and money. Generally, the conservatives prefer art, literature, music, and film only for their entertainment value.
Here’s my take on the conservatives:
Literature: the Bible, books about politics, military, history, financial matters, business management, or run-of-the-mill (wholesome) fiction. Virtually nothing that deals with social criticism or philosophical ideas.
Film: Shallow, run-of-the-mill (wholesome) Hollywood movies, no interest in foreign, experimental or underground film.
Art: Something to scoff at. Probably no interest whatsoever, other than art as investment that appreciates, eventually producing a financial gain.
Music: Shallow, run-of-the-mill pop music, religious music, maybe some classical. No interest in any music that is out of the ordinary.
I think that most conservatives would rather spend their free time not with art, music, literature, or film, but as active particiapants of religion, and passionately dedicated spectators of football and basketball.
My take is that our society as a whole seems to be obsessed with labeling and categorizing each other. It also seems to be obsessed with reinventing the universe as a binary system. So, rather than allowing each individual his or her unique intellect, ‘we’ tend to attach all sorts of attributes to force that individual into ‘our’ contrived, dichotomous machine.
Personally, I reject this system of intellectual slavery. I did not particularly enjoy Postmodern Theory classes during college. I did, however, glean something with which I wholeheartedly agree, and that is the rejection of our society’s binary mandate, under which we dichotomize and then privilege one of the two artificially formed elements. There is, if we but open our eyes, an entire spectrum between the polar opposites.
Your question confirms my point. There is no liberal OR conservative. There is no creative OR analytical. They are not mutually exclusive conditions. Anyone who accepts that they are is only limiting his or her existence, and is in essence a lemming. There is a continuum. And we can free ourselves to traverse and explore that continuum in its entirety by casting off the yoke of our society’s black and white labeled universe. A man like Leonardo da Vinci could never exist in our society--either he would be driven insane by society, or society would be driven insane obsessing over how to label him. We are all polymaths if we only allow ourselves to be.
My take is that our society as a whole seems to be obsessed with labeling and categorizing each other. It also seems to be obsessed with reinventing the universe as a binary system. So, rather than allowing each individual his or her unique intellect, ‘we’ tend to attach all sorts of attributes to force that individual into ‘our’ contrived, dichotomous machine.
Personally, I reject this system of intellectual slavery. I did not particularly enjoy Postmodern Theory classes during college. I did, however, glean something with which I wholeheartedly agree, and that is the rejection of our society’s binary mandate, under which we dichotomize and then privilege one of the two artificially formed elements. There is, if we but open our eyes, an entire spectrum between the polar opposites.
Your question confirms my point. There is no liberal OR conservative. There is no creative OR analytical. They are not mutually exclusive conditions. Anyone who accepts that they are is only limiting his or her existence, and is in essence a lemming. There is a continuum. And we can free ourselves to traverse and explore that continuum in its entirety by casting off the yoke of our society’s black and white labeled universe. A man like Leonardo da Vinci could never exist in our society--either he would be driven insane by society, or society would be driven insane obsessing over how to label him. We are all polymaths if we only allow ourselves to be.
Death to societal dichotomy!
Best post on the subject IMO.
Thanks for expressing what I have been feeling but couldn't put into words as thoughtfully as you have done here.
My voting record is pretty conservative, my spritual beliefs as an evangelical Christian automatically get me labeled, but I am a degreed musician unable to find work in my chosen field that will support my family. Have my conservative beliefs limited me? Perhaps, but more from the mindset that you propose here, this societal dichotomy moreso than my conservative leanings make me less creative.
But perhpas I am just not that good. Since I can't sing or play anything for you on this post and I'm too old to go on American Idol and have Simon set me straight, that question will just have to go unanswered for the time.
As to the OP....I did not realize that "creativity" was defined by a political leaning. This is an individual trait, and what is considered to be "creative" by one may be trash to another. Art, music, poetry and such are "in the eye of the beholder". How we define creativity has nothing to do with politics.. Looking back through history there is much creativity in ALL areas of our thinkng. A plethora of beautiful art and literature has come from religious background ( I would consider that "conservative") and from "liberal" areas (for the time anyway) such as Da Vinci, Mozart et al. I find your question to be rather confusing as I have never considered a "liberal" or "conservative" source when discussing "creativity". .
In a nutshell, neo-cons have no appreciation for arts and tend to be very pedestrian and boring. Other conservatives who are more Liberterian leaning tend to be more hip. You will never find some Hush Bimbo, Sean Vannity loving neo-cons listening to the Joy Division. Chances are they never heard of them. But, a Liberterian open person like yours truly is with it.
I think you have to give conservatives pretty high grades for creativity in the political arena. They send the country headlong into the toilet, yet manage to get liberals blamed for it. No matter how you look at it, that's impressive!
Finally had some good, balanced, well thought out posts on the subject, NV Plumber, you deserve many rep points to go along with ChrisC.
Then you have the next two inane bits of drivel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Looking back through history there is much creativity in ALL areas of our thinkng. A plethora of beautiful art and literature has come from religious background ( I would consider that "conservative") and from "liberal" areas (for the time anyway) such as Da Vinci, Mozart et al. I find your question to be rather confusing as I have never considered a "liberal" or "conservative" source when discussing "creativity". 
