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.
Just the opposite (as is typical with liberals, getting things backwards and wrong). Artists tend to NOT see the real world, they see it as they want it to be, or as they see it though their particular vision. They generally don't see the real world.
The whole purpose of art is someones interpretation. The fact that you don't know this or hold this idea in contempt sums up the thread.
When I think of conservative art, I think of Thomas Kincade, lithographs of hunting dogs or 19th century cowboys being sold in military surplus catologs, NASCAR commemorative plates from the Franklin Mint, and realist paintings of Jesus hanging out with the ghosts of the Founding Fathers in modern day Washington DC.
What is interesting that it is possible for scientists to become good in art. I have seen scientists becoming artists. However, have not seen any artist to scientist conversions…. Being a mathematician or a rocket scientist requires outstanding logic in addition to vision and imagination.
It takes years and years of formal training to become a scientist. Whereas a mentally ill homeless dude who dropped out of the 10th grade can make art out of trash that blows people's minds. Some of the craziest artwork I ever saw was made by some Brooklyn janitor in the 1950s (I wish I could remember his name) whose work wasn't discovered until after he died and they were cleaning out his apartment. It was like he had come down from outer space.
What I mean to say is this: the entry barrier to making mind-blowing art isn't nearly so formidable.
Why aren't there many politically conservative artists, even less so, neoconservative artists? (That includes musicians, fiction movie makers, poets, video game designers, etc.)
I think it's because art is often about exploring new things, pushing limits. Kind of the antithesis of conservatism when you think about it, hell the very word 'conservative' implies a sense of maintaining the norm.
I've noticed a lot of non-left-leaning artists are more libertarian, my favorite example being Rush.
When talking about music, specifically everything from rock onwards, you have to realize that rock and its ilk have always been about being edgy. Elvis offended conservatives back in his day. The Stones were raunchy for their time. And don't get me started on rap and heavy metal and punk...
I know some musicians are conservative but they don't really let on to it through their lyrics. A lot of musicians (both liberal and conservative) try to keep politics out of it. And let's be real, up until the Tea Party, I think most people think of liberals when they think of people who are very vocal about their political standings. Y'know, the PETA fanatic throwing fake blood on fur coats or the treehuggers blowing up SUVs. It just wasn't like most conservatives to shout their ideologies from the rooftops.
When I think of conservative art, I think of Thomas Kincade, lithographs of hunting dogs or 19th century cowboys being sold in military surplus catologs, NASCAR commemorative plates from the Franklin Mint, and realist paintings of Jesus hanging out with the ghosts of the Founding Fathers in modern day Washington DC.
I remember that painting. What a piece of crap. Same category as the velvet Elvis paintings. This is why conservatives don't enter the art field, because they suck. Although I will say Wagner wrote some kick ass operas.
Why aren't there many politically conservative artists, even less so, neoconservative artists? (That includes musicians, fiction movie makers, poets, video game designers, etc.)
I would guess that those of us who worry about the future, and making sure we have enough savings and assets to meet those times when we can't work and earn a living, became fiscal conservatives (who want government to be as fiscally responsible as WE are). We were led to believe, whether true or not, that as youngsters with artistic potential (be it oil painters or photographers or graphics artists), we simply wouldn't be paid enough to achieve financial security. We understood that with a huge and ever-growing population, and so many people dabbling as artists without so much as needing to cover their expenses, there wouldn't be much demand for our "services" and consequently wages would be low or jobs merely temporary.
I think it's because art is often about exploring new things, pushing limits. Kind of the antithesis of conservatism when you think about it, hell the very word 'conservative' implies a sense of maintaining the norm.
I've noticed a lot of non-left-leaning artists are more libertarian, my favorite example being Rush.
When talking about music, specifically everything from rock onwards, you have to realize that rock and its ilk have always been about being edgy. Elvis offended conservatives back in his day. The Stones were raunchy for their time. And don't get me started on rap and heavy metal and punk...
I know some musicians are conservative but they don't really let on to it through their lyrics. A lot of musicians (both liberal and conservative) try to keep politics out of it. And let's be real, up until the Tea Party, I think most people think of liberals when they think of people who are very vocal about their political standings. Y'know, the PETA fanatic throwing fake blood on fur coats or the treehuggers blowing up SUVs. It just wasn't like most conservatives to shout their ideologies from the rooftops.
Innovative art requires unbounded free thinking. Dogmatic thinking doesn't create anything new.
Conservatives can create art using formulas laid down by previous free thinkers, so they can, and do, create illustration based on the accepted guidelines already in place. This explains the "illustrative work" of Kincaid, landscapers, portrait artists, etc where a high level of innovation is not required.
Impressionist art was hated in its day by conservatives, because it was "different" and upsetting (not realistic). Even recently, conservatives express their disdain for "modern" art, because it is not "something" (containing objects or a subject - meaning illustration). Fine art is more than illustration. Same with most new things which upset the conservative desire for sameness and predictability. The impressionists, the Beatles, Elvis and rock music, abstract expressionism, global warming, and, yes, the American Revolution itself - anything new and challenging. These things are considered "dangerous" to the conservative comfort zone. Then after a period of time, acceptance may set in.
Another consideration is relative wealth and success. Wealth can make people want to protect their money as much as possible. Al Capp was a politically conservative (for his time) successful and innovative cartoonist who, apparently, couldn't understand why all people were not like him.
There are caveats of course - there can always be charlatans in any field, but you try to weed them out with study of the subject, not jumping to conclusions, and not forming opinions without knowledge.
I think it's because art is often about exploring new things, pushing limits. Kind of the antithesis of conservatism when you think about it, hell the very word 'conservative' implies a sense of maintaining the norm.
When talking about music, specifically everything from rock onwards, you have to realize that rock and its ilk have always been about being edgy. Elvis offended conservatives back in his day. The Stones were raunchy for their time. And don't get me started on rap and heavy metal and punk...
I agree. By the nature of "conservatism", it is to be careful, to resist change....the opposite of what is needed in the arts -- imagination and free thinking. While you will see some conservatives, the nature of most conservative actors is to stick with what they are comfortable with thus limiting their opportunities. In the creative side, where as a more "liberal" actor may be willing to play a part that is far outside his or her comfort zone. If one is not able to remove the shackles of his own opinion, his or her works quickly become predictable and boring.
Why aren't there many politically conservative artists, even less so, neoconservative artists? (That includes musicians, fiction movie makers, poets, video game designers, etc.)
For a long time I have entertained a general guess that for working people, an individual's political orientation (at least its economic liberal/conservative part) is driven largely by the ratio of their financial resources to their work effort.
In this context, I would guess that many artists (cf "starving artist") work without making much money, leading them to a liberal politics. (This seems to be a U-shaped function, bums who soak up handouts without working are also liberal.) Even superstars go through years of being broke before they break through to a big income, then they might or might not become more conservative. (cf Beatles' Taxman; one for you nineteen for me.)
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.
