Lovely piece! I think almost any political art movement falls short if their goal is to be worthy of *ruling* the art world. If their goal is merely to be one subsystem within a (liberal) ecosystem of free expression the bar for success is much lower.
For conservatives who want to become artists, one good idea might be to try to create stories that can serve groups that are going underserved due to the prominence of progressivism and woke ideology in the modern entertainment history. Here are 4 specific examples I can think of for this:
1. A straight romance story that's not trying to promote any particular political message and has a slightly traditional vibe (the female lead can be career-oriented, but the romance itself probably should have a certain traditional romantic appeal).
2. A Flash Gordon style action-adventure story aimed at kids, or male teenagers and young men.
3. High-concept sci-fi, just through a more conservative lens than usual. Think of C.S. Lewis and Orson Scott Card.
4. Any type of story that includes explicitly Christian characters in a mostly positive light, but where the story is *not* all about Christianity. "3 of the 5 most important characters are Christian, and they're not being caricaturized, but the story is not *about* religion" - This sort of thing. Of course, this could easily be combined with either of the first 3.
As someone who's spilled his fair share of ink on the subject (https://wildeyearchive.substack.com/p/the-culture-war-is-unwinnable-on), this was a remarkably refreshing read. I'm more moderate than most, but I've floated in these circles thanks in part to their proximity to pulp fiction revivalists, interested in resurrecting (ironically enough) the styles of the Howards and Bracketts of that era. And my honest answers is: I think the political landscape is too schizophrenic to know what it actually wants.
The signal-to-noise ratio is through the roof. For all the people who pine for sincerity in the modern age, there's too many people relishing in the shit-stirring because politics always comes before art in these circles, and trolling is now just good tactics. I've seen a million opinions from people I don't know and from people who don't seem to know what they actually want, or simply vomit whatever's on their mind because we're suppose to both not take social media seriously and also take it seriously as the "marketplace of ideas." There's also the "basket of deplorables" problem of getting a much of known contrarians and disagreeable rebels in a political space and asking them to pick a single direction to head in. Before you know it, knives are at each other's throats over bread crumbs.
Furthermore, the issues facing most artistic mediums in the modern day have transcended the political and sociological and have leapt straight into the technological. Not just the clogging of feeds, but the broken systems of curation and the fact that all new and exciting works have to essentially compete with the whole of man's output. All past art and entertainment as well as all other forms of attention grabbing "content," from news to clickbait to ads and more. I've essentially tapped out from the political end of the conversation because, as you mention, the purity spiral is beyond worth engaging with. I have too many "no-no" tastes and I enjoy too many things that are off-limits (including but not limited to James Joyce, Arthur C. Clarke, The Great Gatsby, and 12 Angry Men). I know there are great conservative artists (sculptor Fen de Villiers comes to mind), but I don't think the culture of online conservatism, or even this New Right, will be able to last in forging a decent path ahead for the conservative artist. The only way you'll get great conservative artists is by getting real people in the real world and forming local scenes that can help fuel and expand efforts across state-lines and beyond. For now, it's a free-for-all of raucous proportions where nothing gets done at the speed of thought.
Though there does seem to be a popular disgust at slop and propagandistic art, there also seems to be plenty of people who want to watch whatever Netflix churns out--at least put it on in the background.
There is this book making the rounds about the English working class, and all the books they used to read 100 years ago. Not sure if it's true, but people sure are ready to believe that.
Do ordinary Americans have a latent aesthetic that needs to be awakened, or does something need to be destroyed and rebuilt?
The audience problem is real. But ultimately beyond the scope of what anyone can control. The best people can do now is devote themselves to creating beauty and meaning through works, and the community part comes naturally.
This was a really thought-provoking essay. I kept revising my original comment and adding so much I deleted it entirely—might just write my own response. But the gist of what I wanted to say is this: great art, especially the kind you’re talking about here, usually comes from one of two places—grievance or transcendence.
Either: “I’ve lost something, and I’m worse off for it.”
Or: “I’m going to give something up, and I’ll become better for it.”
The Right is already quite good at the grievance part. Meme culture is a kind of folk art—raw, pointed, deeply expressive. But it’s not the kind of aspirational or unifying art you’re pointing toward here. There’s no Soyjak Guernica. You could imagine a powerful conservative art about the hollowing out of the Rust Belt, or something like DEIth of a Salesman—a man loses his promotion and asks, “What was it all for?” But those stories would require a more vulnerable vantage point, and the Right isn’t in that position anymore. Or at least, it doesn’t see itself that way.
Which brings me to transcendence. As you put it: “Art provides us with representations of people as ‘better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are,’ and it is through contemplating these representations that we learn and infer and come to experience those sublime moments of epiphany, the realization that what we are witnessing, hearing, or reading reflects some fundamental truth about being.”
To me, that truth is almost always about who we are—and who we are capable of becoming. Great art is about transcendence: extending beyond ourselves to see and be something more. But transcendence demands grief. You have to admit you’re lacking in some way. Something in you—or in your worldview—has to be surrendered for something better to emerge. And while some corners of the Right are beginning to wrestle with that, I don’t see enough of it yet to support the kind of emotional depth great art requires.
The Left, of course, has struggled with both of these in its own way. It made a lot of people upset with the former—what felt like constant critique, deconstruction, and moral judgment. And yet it produced excellent grievance art. But the latter was arguably where it faltered most: it attempted transcendence without grief—trying to leap ahead into a new world without acknowledging what, or who, might be left behind. This is where it seemed to really piss people off.
The art of the left has been dead on the table for some time now--you need only go to the Whitney twice a year; read a few pages of Sally Rooney; and try to watch a single BBC series to know that. There may be exceptions, but they only prove the rule. The vast majority of art from the left is a mindless rehearsal of the same excruciatingly dull political themes (bad demographic group does bad thing, good demographic group rises triumphant, redeeming history). In the process, the left has destroyed the basis of art: authenticity.
The left has become so insufferably phony it can only produce insufferably phony art.
I don't know whether a new right can produce art of value, but something's got to give.
My answer as an artist and a rightist? Just ignore the politics and listen to the Muse. This may sound like a cop-out, but it’s the only way to create powerful art as art is inherently indirect. It’s no different from romance, in fact, art IS romantic. It communicates through form, color, emphasis, tone, and much else. A small and intriguing smell of perfume. A single rose on the old grave. The gleaning sweat beads on the sunbaked skin. A single tear track cutting through the grimy surface, leaving bare the soft pink skin of her face underneath. Those are the examples of how art is indirect even in something as on-the-nose literal as writing. Being literal is not being indirect. Suggestion is indirect. It draw in the audience, exciting their curiosity, appealing their various senses, encouraging them to dream of sublime.
“Conservative art” but “art can’t be political” Jfc do these people even listen to themselves?
Interesting no mention of Camilo Jose Cela, Celine, Eliot, Yeats, Pound…just Jünger. Almost as if only masculine virility matters. Now why would that be,,,?
Why on earth would the right wing be barbarians? For centuries the right wing represented the establishment (and it in most respects still does). That's surely the context that is just as likely to produce 'Great Art'.
Freeze peach and all that, but a De Santis apparatchik? Really? Not even a mention of that fact, that he is allied with not only one of the worst fascists around, but literally a virulent enemy of free speech, academic inquiry, and education of all kinds? Guess Bari Weiss will be next?
We voted for Trump to get Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, two clerks for Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy is the GOAT because he wrote Ashcroft v. Free Speech (2002) and Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) legalizing anime and video games, including strong-females like Tifa (final fantasy 7) and strong-blacks like Barrett (ff7).
Lovely piece! I think almost any political art movement falls short if their goal is to be worthy of *ruling* the art world. If their goal is merely to be one subsystem within a (liberal) ecosystem of free expression the bar for success is much lower.
Great point.
For conservatives who want to become artists, one good idea might be to try to create stories that can serve groups that are going underserved due to the prominence of progressivism and woke ideology in the modern entertainment history. Here are 4 specific examples I can think of for this:
1. A straight romance story that's not trying to promote any particular political message and has a slightly traditional vibe (the female lead can be career-oriented, but the romance itself probably should have a certain traditional romantic appeal).
2. A Flash Gordon style action-adventure story aimed at kids, or male teenagers and young men.
3. High-concept sci-fi, just through a more conservative lens than usual. Think of C.S. Lewis and Orson Scott Card.
4. Any type of story that includes explicitly Christian characters in a mostly positive light, but where the story is *not* all about Christianity. "3 of the 5 most important characters are Christian, and they're not being caricaturized, but the story is not *about* religion" - This sort of thing. Of course, this could easily be combined with either of the first 3.
It really can be that simple
I am in agreement that the artistic element of thr cultural right cannot be continually imprisoned by an increasingly boring "discourse"
As someone who's spilled his fair share of ink on the subject (https://wildeyearchive.substack.com/p/the-culture-war-is-unwinnable-on), this was a remarkably refreshing read. I'm more moderate than most, but I've floated in these circles thanks in part to their proximity to pulp fiction revivalists, interested in resurrecting (ironically enough) the styles of the Howards and Bracketts of that era. And my honest answers is: I think the political landscape is too schizophrenic to know what it actually wants.
The signal-to-noise ratio is through the roof. For all the people who pine for sincerity in the modern age, there's too many people relishing in the shit-stirring because politics always comes before art in these circles, and trolling is now just good tactics. I've seen a million opinions from people I don't know and from people who don't seem to know what they actually want, or simply vomit whatever's on their mind because we're suppose to both not take social media seriously and also take it seriously as the "marketplace of ideas." There's also the "basket of deplorables" problem of getting a much of known contrarians and disagreeable rebels in a political space and asking them to pick a single direction to head in. Before you know it, knives are at each other's throats over bread crumbs.
Furthermore, the issues facing most artistic mediums in the modern day have transcended the political and sociological and have leapt straight into the technological. Not just the clogging of feeds, but the broken systems of curation and the fact that all new and exciting works have to essentially compete with the whole of man's output. All past art and entertainment as well as all other forms of attention grabbing "content," from news to clickbait to ads and more. I've essentially tapped out from the political end of the conversation because, as you mention, the purity spiral is beyond worth engaging with. I have too many "no-no" tastes and I enjoy too many things that are off-limits (including but not limited to James Joyce, Arthur C. Clarke, The Great Gatsby, and 12 Angry Men). I know there are great conservative artists (sculptor Fen de Villiers comes to mind), but I don't think the culture of online conservatism, or even this New Right, will be able to last in forging a decent path ahead for the conservative artist. The only way you'll get great conservative artists is by getting real people in the real world and forming local scenes that can help fuel and expand efforts across state-lines and beyond. For now, it's a free-for-all of raucous proportions where nothing gets done at the speed of thought.
Though there does seem to be a popular disgust at slop and propagandistic art, there also seems to be plenty of people who want to watch whatever Netflix churns out--at least put it on in the background.
There is this book making the rounds about the English working class, and all the books they used to read 100 years ago. Not sure if it's true, but people sure are ready to believe that.
Do ordinary Americans have a latent aesthetic that needs to be awakened, or does something need to be destroyed and rebuilt?
The audience problem is real. But ultimately beyond the scope of what anyone can control. The best people can do now is devote themselves to creating beauty and meaning through works, and the community part comes naturally.
This was a really thought-provoking essay. I kept revising my original comment and adding so much I deleted it entirely—might just write my own response. But the gist of what I wanted to say is this: great art, especially the kind you’re talking about here, usually comes from one of two places—grievance or transcendence.
Either: “I’ve lost something, and I’m worse off for it.”
Or: “I’m going to give something up, and I’ll become better for it.”
The Right is already quite good at the grievance part. Meme culture is a kind of folk art—raw, pointed, deeply expressive. But it’s not the kind of aspirational or unifying art you’re pointing toward here. There’s no Soyjak Guernica. You could imagine a powerful conservative art about the hollowing out of the Rust Belt, or something like DEIth of a Salesman—a man loses his promotion and asks, “What was it all for?” But those stories would require a more vulnerable vantage point, and the Right isn’t in that position anymore. Or at least, it doesn’t see itself that way.
Which brings me to transcendence. As you put it: “Art provides us with representations of people as ‘better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are,’ and it is through contemplating these representations that we learn and infer and come to experience those sublime moments of epiphany, the realization that what we are witnessing, hearing, or reading reflects some fundamental truth about being.”
To me, that truth is almost always about who we are—and who we are capable of becoming. Great art is about transcendence: extending beyond ourselves to see and be something more. But transcendence demands grief. You have to admit you’re lacking in some way. Something in you—or in your worldview—has to be surrendered for something better to emerge. And while some corners of the Right are beginning to wrestle with that, I don’t see enough of it yet to support the kind of emotional depth great art requires.
The Left, of course, has struggled with both of these in its own way. It made a lot of people upset with the former—what felt like constant critique, deconstruction, and moral judgment. And yet it produced excellent grievance art. But the latter was arguably where it faltered most: it attempted transcendence without grief—trying to leap ahead into a new world without acknowledging what, or who, might be left behind. This is where it seemed to really piss people off.
This is such a great comment. I’m going to mention it in something I’m writing over the weekend. Thank you!
The art of the left has been dead on the table for some time now--you need only go to the Whitney twice a year; read a few pages of Sally Rooney; and try to watch a single BBC series to know that. There may be exceptions, but they only prove the rule. The vast majority of art from the left is a mindless rehearsal of the same excruciatingly dull political themes (bad demographic group does bad thing, good demographic group rises triumphant, redeeming history). In the process, the left has destroyed the basis of art: authenticity.
The left has become so insufferably phony it can only produce insufferably phony art.
I don't know whether a new right can produce art of value, but something's got to give.
My answer as an artist and a rightist? Just ignore the politics and listen to the Muse. This may sound like a cop-out, but it’s the only way to create powerful art as art is inherently indirect. It’s no different from romance, in fact, art IS romantic. It communicates through form, color, emphasis, tone, and much else. A small and intriguing smell of perfume. A single rose on the old grave. The gleaning sweat beads on the sunbaked skin. A single tear track cutting through the grimy surface, leaving bare the soft pink skin of her face underneath. Those are the examples of how art is indirect even in something as on-the-nose literal as writing. Being literal is not being indirect. Suggestion is indirect. It draw in the audience, exciting their curiosity, appealing their various senses, encouraging them to dream of sublime.
Good lord.
Who TF cares about conservative art at this juncture.
“Conservative art” but “art can’t be political” Jfc do these people even listen to themselves?
Interesting no mention of Camilo Jose Cela, Celine, Eliot, Yeats, Pound…just Jünger. Almost as if only masculine virility matters. Now why would that be,,,?
Agreed… “Art can’t be political” is a pretty ridiculous statement
Why on earth would the right wing be barbarians? For centuries the right wing represented the establishment (and it in most respects still does). That's surely the context that is just as likely to produce 'Great Art'.
Loved this. Good right wing literature is also hard to come by but I’d recommend The Redemption Procedure by Andrew Knight
Freeze peach and all that, but a De Santis apparatchik? Really? Not even a mention of that fact, that he is allied with not only one of the worst fascists around, but literally a virulent enemy of free speech, academic inquiry, and education of all kinds? Guess Bari Weiss will be next?
To answer your question, yes.
Here is a partial list:
https://ljagilamplighterwright.substack.com/p/looking-for-a-good-book-the-superversive
SPOILER: no
By the New Right you mean Trump-voters?
We voted for Trump to get Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, two clerks for Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy is the GOAT because he wrote Ashcroft v. Free Speech (2002) and Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) legalizing anime and video games, including strong-females like Tifa (final fantasy 7) and strong-blacks like Barrett (ff7).
~80,000,000 people voted for Trump. Trump voters are not a monolith who all did it for court nominations.
Poll: Does this work read as more right wing or left wing? Surfacetensions.substack.com