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.
Yes, my point is that you dismiss people that pursue "non-creative" endeavors purely for "financial reward". Simplistic to say the least.
Additionally, you don't recognize that people think differently and that your premise is that someone becomes say....a mathematician (like me) because they are out for a buck. Hmmm....I like my job, I like problem solving, I suck at a painting and my kids like to eat....I guess this makes me a bad person.
So basically, I'm only supporting your general theory and not your judgemental conclusions as to which add value nor motivations for doing so. Basically a true free thinker would see the complexity of the issue and not just make a drive-by attack on "dumb old money grubbing conservatives".
Yes, my point is that you dismiss people that pursue "non-creative" endeavors purely for "financial reward". Simplistic to say the least.
Additionally, you don't recognize that people think differently and that your premise is that someone becomes say....a mathematician (like me) because they are out for a buck. Hmmm....I like my job, I like problem solving, I suck at a painting and my kids like to eat....I guess this makes me a bad person.
So basically, I'm only supporting your general theory and not your judgemental conclusions as to which add value nor motivations for doing so. Basically a true free thinker would see the complexity of the issue and not just make a drive-by attack on "dumb old money grubbing conservatives".
Thanks for your insight. I don't dismiss anyone. Feeding a family and making bucks does not make anyone a bad guy. I am not suggesting that conservatives actively participate in painting, making films, writing literature, or making music. Some do and some don't.
"dumb old money grubbing conservatives" is put in quotes by you, I didn't write that. I am not suggesting conservatives are "dumb", running banks and businesses requires intelligence. The "drive-by" sounds like a term coined by a talk show host.
Actually, I don't have any grudges against those conservatives who make money, because some donate to (and attend) cultural institutions such as museums, art exhibits, concerts, etc.
This is just a repeat from the OP of my assumptions:
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.
The simple fact of the matter is where the major art and culture museums/hubs are in this country are also the most liberal cities there are.
Cities known for their art and culture: Austin, Nashville, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Detroit (motown), New York City, Washington DC and Boston. Hmmm, aren't those some of the most liberal cities in America? Even Nashville and Austin, cities in conservative states, are very liberal. Simply put, art and liberal politics go hand-in-hand.
I think that the stereotypes stated here are specious, uninformed, and mindless.
I belong to an art group that is primarily conservative. They have art shows in two states and five counties. They volunteer to teach kids in schools how to produce art; good, personally expressive art work, from sketches through jewelry, pottery, sculpting in both metal and clay, paintings, and even to quilting.
I have several conservative friends that have their own bands - they play not just country but rock and roll. We listen to rock, and some of us karaoke to rock and country. We like the Stones, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Journey, the Eagles - and Black Eyed Peas, Bob Marley, a LOT of techno groups, and Alannis Morrissette. We are an eclectic group; some are teachers and administrators, one is a bank manager, some are ranchers, some own their own car dealerships or welding shops.
We discuss the books we read; Ayn Rand, Greenspan's autobiography, murder mysteries. One of my friends is a poet who is performing this weekend at a fund raising dinner at $20 bucks a plate (it's sold out already); several of my friends are published (not self) authors of fiction.
By some folks' simpleminded generalizations, they prove that their ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance. Just because we do not think that peeing on our friends in public is art, and should be funded by taxpayer monies, doesn't mean that we are religiocentric.
I think that the stereotypes stated here are specious, uninformed, and mindless.
I belong to an art group that is primarily conservative. They have art shows in two states and five counties. They volunteer to teach kids in schools how to produce art; good, personally expressive art work, from sketches through jewelry, pottery, sculpting in both metal and clay, paintings, and even to quilting.
I have several conservative friends that have their own bands - they play not just country but rock and roll. We listen to rock, and some of us karaoke to rock and country. We like the Stones, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Journey, the Eagles - and Black Eyed Peas, Bob Marley, a LOT of techno groups, and Alannis Morrissette. We are an eclectic group; some are teachers and administrators, one is a bank manager, some are ranchers, some own their own car dealerships or welding shops.
We discuss the books we read; Ayn Rand, Greenspan's autobiography, murder mysteries. One of my friends is a poet who is performing this weekend at a fund raising dinner at $20 bucks a plate (it's sold out already); several of my friends are published (not self) authors of fiction.
By some folks' simpleminded generalizations, they prove that their ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance. Just because we do not think that peeing on our friends in public is art, and should be funded by taxpayer monies, doesn't mean that we are religiocentric.
The question is not whether conservatives appreciate art, it's whether the MAJORITY (not all, a majority could be 50.1%) of artistic types have liberal politics. Considering the bands (awesome...great taste) you listed, every one of those would be considered wildly liberal. It's just a simple fact that someone who is "conservative" would also be "conservative" in choosing their career path. Therefore, it's less likely they would move to NYC to become an artist or actor on Broadway, just as it's less likely they would move to hollywood and become a TV/Movie/Music star. It's pretty simple.
I personally am someone who appreciates art, music and culture more than most, but as I am a conservative person (registered Republican), I work in finance and just enjoy the music, movies and books instead of creating them myself. I write and sing, but as I am a more grounded person, I don't follow those dreams in favor of the most realistic life. Isn't that what makes a conservative a conservative? Aren't you more likely to be a conservative if you're married with kids than if you're young, single and living the artist life? Go to any Community Musical Theater Group and you'll find that almost every one of them (the pit musicians, the set designers, the actors and the theater director) is not just a liberal, but the extreme liberals.
This is not an insulting thread, this is simply the truth.
No - I disagree. A conservative works for a living because s/he refuses to demand government support for his/her art, but lets it stand on its own - and knows durned well that it won't, because customers are fickle and the economy really does starve real artists. It's called practicality - something true conservatives have an abundance of, as evinced by their choices. No one 'owes' them anything for being talented - if they appreciate it they will pay for it; if not, the government and taxpayers aren't and shouldn't be required to. (Not talking about neo-cons here, but true conservatives.)
My motto in class is "Everyone's an artist - they just have to find their media". As a successful artist who had her own shop at one time, and who continues to create things today, I am tired of being dissed by 'artsy' liberals who think that they have the right to be supported by my tax dollars when they produce nothing I would purchase on a bet. I buy art I like - from everyone from street artists to galleries - because I like it and it speaks to me. If everyone followed that same premise, and we didn't have government support of every and any one who wants to be, or thinks that they are, an artist, the art world would be a LOT smaller - and a lot more defined by what people would spend money on to own and hold and admire in their own homes and hands, every day. Art is the expression of feeling - be it in music or movies or literature or paint or ink or metal or clay - and a decided LACK of feeling, the superficial maunderings of giggling soulless creatures paid by a government to produce any and every bit of offal, is not worth a penny. A true conservative will not support it, or the schools that produce it, or the bureaucracies that fund it.
Looking past some of the lame brained liberal posts and getting back to the original post...
At first look it probably wouild appear there are more liberals in the arts. Liberals tend to be more emotional & passionate about things and that leads into art-like areas. Conservatives are more thinkers and they tend to be the scholars of our times.
Those are general thoughts, but facts seem to support them.
I think that the stereotypes stated here are specious, uninformed, and mindless.
I belong to an art group that is primarily conservative. They have art shows in two states and five counties. They volunteer to teach kids in schools how to produce art; good, personally expressive art work, from sketches through jewelry, pottery, sculpting in both metal and clay, paintings, and even to quilting.
I have several conservative friends that have their own bands - they play not just country but rock and roll. We listen to rock, and some of us karaoke to rock and country. We like the Stones, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Journey, the Eagles - and Black Eyed Peas, Bob Marley, a LOT of techno groups, and Alannis Morrissette. We are an eclectic group; some are teachers and administrators, one is a bank manager, some are ranchers, some own their own car dealerships or welding shops.
We discuss the books we read; Ayn Rand, Greenspan's autobiography, murder mysteries. One of my friends is a poet who is performing this weekend at a fund raising dinner at $20 bucks a plate (it's sold out already); several of my friends are published (not self) authors of fiction.
By some folks' simpleminded generalizations, they prove that their ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance. Just because we do not think that peeing on our friends in public is art, and should be funded by taxpayer monies, doesn't mean that we are religiocentric.
To your first paragraph: many galleries and art shows draw a distinct line separating art from crafts. The latter serves ornamental and decorative function, but seldom expresses ideas or stimulates the mind. I've seen many nice things made by people, but the items would have a hard time qualifying as art. But as long as you people enjoy doing it, I think it's a great idea and wish you all the best. Much better than wasting away in front of the TV.
The last paragraph: I'll agree that many stupid "art" projects are funded for non-creative people who can't think of anything original. This annoys me as well. The problem often is if someone with a BA in art has a stupid idea the public will be afraid to challenge it. But yes, the field of art has many numbskulls who have nothing to say, but merely want to outrage. The best way to prevent this would be if more people took an interest in art and challenged the artist about his project.
I think liberals are more creative in a sense. I think they are more apt to see things the way they would like them to be rather than the way things really are (idealism as apposed to realism I suppose). I do, however, also think that "creative" is a very subjective term.
Last edited by JDTD; 02-05-2009 at 08:05 PM..
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.
