Culture Why Can’t Conservatives Create Art?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Why Can’t Conservatives Create Art?​

By Dave Greene, March 11, 2026
Link: https://firstthings.com/why-cant-conservatives-create-art/ (Archive)


Modern conservatives recognize their duty to reverse the devastation wrought by nearly a century of progressive cultural hegemony. And yet, even as they intuit the superiority of older, premodern forms of social organization and art, their attempts at culture-making all too often amount to imitating the patterns of the least progressive time they understand. Predictably, progressivism rolls on unperturbed.

This futile pattern is exemplified by conservatives’ repeated failures to create serious art. Take, for example, TPUSA’s alternative to the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show, featuring ’90s nu-metal sensation Kid Rock. On the face of things, the dueling halftime shows were a battle of cultural lightweights. But, as many non-leftists noted, it was obvious which show represented “the cool kids’ table.” Bad Bunny’s spectacle was confusing, disorganized, unmusical, and pushed a tired globalist message. Nevertheless, the TPUSA event came off worse, parading a culturally eclipsed conservative lineup, obsessed with petty nostalgia, and desperate for approval.

No matter how much effort conservatives put into cultural production, no matter how far the progressive mainstream declines, conservatives never come out on top. Nothing they produce ever feels good, refreshing, or genuinely life-giving.

The problem lies with the general conservative understanding of art and culture. Most ordinary non-progressive people agree that culture was good until very recently. Even if it was all produced by liberals with questionable values, the mainstream once delivered good things that felt fun, and sometimes even uplifting. Now they don’t. Thus, to the conservative mind, the solution is to recreate the kind of products that were popular in the years when things were better.

This backward-looking approach to culture fits the business model of media companies like Daily Wire and Angel Studios. As they see it, there is a large consumer demographic underserved by the mainstream. Therefore, the production of new targeted media will naturally procure profit and prestige.

In 2026, conservatives’ target demographics are obvious: boomers who watch cable news, evangelical Christians with staid cultural tastes, and middle-class millennials alienated by the post-2012 culture shift. Therefore, conservative production companies create content targeted at what these groups already consume: safe retreads of popular entertainment with on-the-nose political messages, bland renditions of Bible stories with the edges sanded off, and carbon copies of Hollywood genre films from the early 2000s.

Unsurprisingly, the media produced (financially successful or not) is over-optimized slop. The products hit the key metrics and are, in some direct way, “what the audience wanted.” But no one cares when they debut, and conservative audiences are rarely happy with what they get.

What holds conservatives back is a mindset that prefers the familiar over the good. They chase the tail of the zeitgeist while the culture slips through their fingers.

For media to be good, it must make people love it, not just mildly satisfied with it. It must point them toward higher aspirations that they don’t encounter in their ordinary lives. Art is not a demand-driven consumer product. Quality media does not give audiences what they say they want; it shows them what they should want. It is aspirational. In fact, the use of beauty to make people love higher things is probably as good a working definition of “art” as any.

When we regard art and entertainment from previous eras, whether progressive or reactionary, popular or avant-garde, they all follow the same form. Regardless of how they are financed, they are not intended to appease an audience’s preexisting desire but rather to direct that desire toward something the artist believes is good.

Belief in a higher vision gives a piece of media its freshness and force. It shows you something you should want: a future you could be a part of. That’s why people love such products long after their initial run and even organize their lives around them. Not all consumer and investor dollars are equal. The dollars that follow aspirational ideas sponsor works that capture people’s imaginations. The dollars that chase median consumer demand sponsor work that is forgotten soon after it’s consumed. Instead of looking backward, creators must look forward. Instead of giving people what they remember enjoying, new artists need to offer new dreams.

Creating visions like this might involve reaching for deeper truths contained in older traditions or going further to express primal human emotions that the modern world considers dangerous. Perhaps the feelings that these modes elicit are impractical or confusing, but that is all the better for the purposes of art.

Non-progressive creators have an incredible opportunity to forge a new vision for the future. For however forward-looking progressivism remains, its aesthetic vision is dead, and its understanding of the good is manifestly opposed to human flourishing. The mainstream media is receding and, more than ever, people want to believe in something.

Regardless of what pundits say about “stuck culture,” the possibilities for new directions are infinite. One could start with reviving the challenging classics that conservatives so often profess to love on their podcasts. There is no shortage of great stories, from Shakespeare to Tolstoy to Flannery O’Connor, that remain relevant precisely because they cut against our self-conception as moderns.

Or one could take a more radical approach. Find people who are willing to break the mold and snub all modern sensibilities. If you hate modernity, create a vicious indictment of its failures. If you detest the world’s idols, smash them in the most irreverent way imaginable. Create paeans to the lost spirit of the world, love letters to human heroism. Write stories as unrealistic and absurd as possible, or as gritty and harrowing as necessary.

But whatever you do, do not interrogate your art for whether it will make money, much less whether your audience wants it. Audiences do not know what they want. Contemporary man sits in a state of spiritual stupefaction, waiting to be told what is good and what is worth fighting for. As such, those of us who are out of sync with the modern world have the chance to show people what they should desire, the things of ultimate value.

Art is a war of belief, and if you aren’t showing people what is worthy of love and aspiration, you aren’t fighting it. Create bold, unapologetic visions of the truths you believe, and the world will recognize them as art, politics be damned. If you subordinate your vision to safe, consumer-driven demands, you will only show the world that you don’t believe in much of anything at all.
 
There was a little discussion on this topic in the Tumblr files thread, this is my opinion on the topic from there.
- I think right-wingers tend to have a stronger sense of shame than left-wingers and a stronger sense of what's mature or not.
- I also think general sentiment on the right leans toward "Do what you're good at" while on the left it leans more to "Do what you enjoy".
- Right-wingers don't tend to like the idea of engaging something that could be considered immature in-case they are considered immature by proxy, similar to how many will abandon an interest just because a group of troons decided they liked it.
These all combined make right-wingers generally hesitant to engage in creative endeavors, especially if they are unfamiliar with the medium. Therefore, left-wing communities like Tumblr are more appealing to aspiring creatives. I think this also applies to more than just the art circle and that right-wingers restrict themselves a lot from engaging in many different things.

- From what I've seen, a lot of current right-wing attempts at art are purely reactionary, like that book by Ben Shapiro (or someone else at the Daily Wire) where a black bully tells the protagonist "I'll tell the teachers you called me a nigger."
- While Undertale had left-wing influences, I think that if you removed all the gay shit from it, you'd still have a decent story.
With a story that is purely political in purpose, you'll likely end up with a product that only appeals to a political spergs of one side, who will praise it just beccause it promotes their opinion, while those opposed to it will denegrate it because they disagree with it regardless of actual quality.
 
Most Marvel movies are apolitical with just extra woke points dotted everywhere
That's my point. You can't dot in non woke point. What are you going to do? Cast a white person, or a male protagonist? Show a straight relationship? These things wont be seen as right wing. It's just normal.

The vision of the right is more subtle than that.

Someone jokingly mentioned earlier Ghost Busters as an example of a conservative movie. But even though it fits all the ideas of the right, it's not considered a conservative movie. It's just a normal movie.
 
Helldivers 2
Helldivers is not conservative. The studio head was literally asked by the United Nations to present about how his player base are brainwashed fascists. The studio is Swedish for fuck’s sake.


Anyways, right wing art can’t really exist outside of very small niches because the left wing controls pretty much every major art/entertainment production house and distribution network in the west with a totalitarian death grip, and right wing rich people will not invest in creating their own mass market distribution network for anything that’s not talk radio.
 
Last edited:
This futile pattern is exemplified by conservatives’ repeated failures to create serious art. Take, for example, TPUSA’s alternative to the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show, featuring ’90s nu-metal sensation Kid Rock. On the face of things, the dueling halftime shows were a battle of cultural lightweights. But, as many non-leftists noted, it was obvious which show represented “the cool kids’ table.” Bad Bunny’s spectacle was confusing, disorganized, unmusical, and pushed a tired globalist message. Nevertheless, the TPUSA event came off worse, parading a culturally eclipsed conservative lineup, obsessed with petty nostalgia, and desperate for approval.

No matter how much effort conservatives put into cultural production, no matter how far the progressive mainstream declines, conservatives never come out on top. Nothing they produce ever feels good, refreshing, or genuinely life-giving.
Why the fuck would you be looking at a sportsball ad break as "serious art." Go read a Cormac McCarthy novel you fucking faggot. Ain't no leftoid touching that quality
 
I got a couple a' three things to say:
1) who says they aren't? Art is a hugely diverse thing; at its core is communication. On one end of the spectrum you have the exploded parts diagram for your lawnmower engine, on the far end an abstract sculpture or interpretive dance. I have a hard time believing conservatives aren't involved in that huge spectrum somewhere. Art also isn't a synonym for 'good' or 'worthy', leftists creating art doesn't make it - or them- worthwhile.
2) explicitly political art sucks, at least until it's been washed by a suitable amount of time. Old Soviet posters are cool, modern nag-fest films and art installations aren't. When your whole art project is communicating how you're right and everyone else is wrong, it severely harms the piece, and the harm scales with how ham-fisted and dull you are about it.
3) conservatives definitely have withdrawn from the arts and wrongfully dismiss it as something for 'limbruls' without realizing what an effective weapon it can be for combatting 'limbrulism'. I'M TOO BUZY WORKIN AT THE STEEL SMASHIN FACTRY yeah and nobody is impressed or inspired by that, Jim. If you can't communicate your values, thoughts and opinions in a captivating way via art how is anyone supposed to follow it? There's a bronze statue that I can't remember the name of featuring a young child leaving their mother's arms and taking their first steps towards the father. This is an incredibly powerful, incredibly conservative piece that is extremely neglected by conservatives.
 
Why the fuck would you be looking at a sportsball ad break as "serious art." Go read a Cormac McCarthy novel you fucking faggot. Ain't no leftoid touching that quality
It’s not high art, but low art is important too, and there’s precious little of either that is built on a right wing ethos, due to the reasons many here have enumerated.

If right wing ideas are to flourish, they have to be presented to the normie at a scale that rivals what the left can do, but the right won’t invest resources in that. The only major factor driving people right these days is the failure of leftists art and entertainment mostly due to it being noxious slop.
 
Between Cormac McCarthy and The Will Stancil Show, conservatives mog at all levels.
That’s true, but they’re niche. I’ve never even heard of Cormac McCarthy, and I never would have heard of The Will Stancil show if I didn’t frequent this forum.

The issue is more proliferation and not creation.

I’ll give you an example. Most normies have probably seen a Stonetoss comic or two by way of social media. The thing is, Stonetoss will never be regularly syndicated in a mass market publication, physical or electronic.
 
This is not really all true anymore, but things are still fairly bad. After a long hiatus, there has been at least some right wing art on the fringes in the last five years or so. Most of it is on the individual level, and it's young guys trying to make some money though self publishing and selling to an audience looking for something that's not just the ubiquitous liberal slop. Much of it is bad, some of it is nice and getting better. So there are creators and there is a target audience, although probably not a large one. But there are three issues they keep running into, even if things are improving very slightly on this front.
  • Making a living as an artist, even a really good one, needs material security, and that ultimately requires supporting institutions. That means agents and publishers to release your book, galleries to showcase your artwork, individual or institutional patrons to give you money to let you create stuff, and distribution channels to sell whatever you have made. You can hustle and do all that on your own, but not everyone can do that, and very few can do it efficiently enough. Self published stuff will never hit big. The best you can hope for is a modest success or a hobbyist if you can self finance. There are outfits like Passage Press which do some of this, but obviously, they are very small potatoes selling to a niche audience.
  • Patronage doesn't work out for creators in the right because conservatives are lousy with patronage. The left hurls enormous amounts of money (including your money in the form of taxes, but also a lot of patronbux) at absolutely terrible creators, because at least they know it serves their cause. There are tons of grants for the "queer black woman" intersectional soup even though no good stuff has ever come from that niche. Very little of this support happens on the right, although from the POV of a genuinely rich guy, it would be peanuts to fund someone talented, or establish a grant for resident artists. They sometimes finance safe, disappointing boomer slop, which ends up doing more damage than good. When the left gets elected, they also use tax money to finance their people. Hell, that's how most lefty art gets paid for. When the right gets elected, they don't finance their people at all, AND don't cut off the horrible leftists sucking at the public teats because of MUH DECORUM and "imagine if the roles were reversed" (they already are, you idiots).
  • Over the last 15 years in particular (but longer in some fields like the movies), the left has been successful at imposing severe costs on openly, and sometimes even potentially right wing people. That means losing your job and employability, getting yourself deplatformed from precisely the places where you could promote and sell your stuff. None of that crap exists for leftists, and the last time it did was the 50s, but it wasn't this bad even then. If you are a small right wing creator, getting your little business nuked is a realistic prospect, and the "conservatives" have done very little to help with that. You may get a few pitybucks on a patreon, until that's gone too.
TL;DR there is a lot of potential for a right wing conservative revival right now because the left has been so terrible, and ended up closing the gates utterly for young white men (who are the main creative force anywhere). There are people who are tying to create right wing art, they are getting decent at it, but there is very little effort to help good right wing art get made and become successful. As usual, the left ends up winning because the right doesn't even show up to the fight.
 
You missed the part where older conservatives gatekeep and purity spiral against everyone [younger than them] who isn't perfectly "conservative" in their eyes. To where younger conservatives and other "right leaning" people either go apolitical and or tell those old fucks to eat shit and die. Thus they ain't officially counted as their conservatives.
There is also the fact that "Conservatives" perpetually look down on any entertainment that isn't "THE SPORTS" and pretend that "THE SPORTS" are conservative despite being as pozzed if not more.

At least we nerds actually play our games, I am willing to bet the average conservative who still watches The National Faggot League couldn't coach their way out of a wet paper bag and would go 0-14.
 
Simple, they lack proper patrons. Real conservatism is a direct threat to the establishment, and if they can't control and monetize it properly, it won't get funded.
And when they do it's often deliberately to spread a message like that Lady Ballers movie.

It's basically the right wing version of an SJW movie.
 
Art that is a success needs creativity. Japan can make art left or right or neutral.

Mutts can't make art.

Right: Jeebus story number 6 gorillionth rehash.

Left: Reboot number 666 but lamer, gayer and blacker than the previous.

This is because der mutt is extremely comformist and that makes for boring art, uninteresting stories.

Just look at Star Wars or Warhammer getting slopped down. All the interesting parts are culled and dumbed down.

Also the average current year (tm) american is grossly ignorant and uninformed.

Tolkien or Lovecraft studied the sciences. Mel Gibson or George Lucas did not have their imaginations killed by perma-coddle bubbles. Jar Jar, while stupid, was at least novel.

You need to read, travel or have an interesting life to be creative. The modern 56% does non of these things. He read 1 book of 2 choices Bible or Harry Potter and that chose his political views.

Hard times create strong men.
Smart times create smart men.

Goyslop+codling creares Disney Adults.
 
Last edited:
Progressives are incapable of creating actual good art genres, the only capable of imitating conservative artists.
Let me demonstrate. TTIPG's created by conservative Christian. Geary guy gags.
Cosmic horror created by a conservative. HP Lovecraft.
High fantasy. Created by. Token.
Swords and sorcery created by a conservative. From Texas. Who also shot himself. Right before his work got popular.
The entire genre of super soldiers involving Space Marines created by a conservative. Robert Heinlein.
Every modern artist. Before the 20th century.
Every good architectural style.
 
That’s true, but they’re niche. I’ve never even heard of Cormac McCarthy, and I never would have heard of The Will Stancil show if I didn’t frequent this forum.
McCarthy is from an older generation who could still make a living as an artist without signing the Lefty Manifesto, so probably not the best example. But The Will Stancil Show is a good one. Very rich people like Marc Andreessen have said on X they have enjoyed it. Meanwhile, Emily Youcis is completely unemployable without incurring reputational damage.

Without control over the institutions (which should be the final goal), the solution would be to have someone with fuck you money like Marc come up to someone like Emily Youcis, and tell her "I liked the Will Stancil Show, and want more of that stuff. Here is enough money to let you live comfortably for a year, now go make something that's not just a current events parody". It works exactly like venture capital, so the finance and tech bros should at least get it. You finance nine duds, but one of the projects will be a hit, and one in 50 will be really big. You get to enjoy the results. Let's say you spend a million on each (and that's very generous), but why should you care? You are a billionaire. You have more money lost in the back of your designer couch.

To cite another example I like, there is this guy called Fen de Villiers who creates sculpture inspired by futurism and art deco. It's also fairly clear he enjoys fascist aesthetics even if he doesn't say it openly.

bronze-2-600x600.jpg bronze-2-600x600.jpg

Now I don't have even close to enough money to commission something like that for my apartment. But I'd love to have that stuff in my office or living room. Being a patron is about finding guys like that and paying them well to do their thing. That's the main reason we remember the Medicis today, and probably won't remember modern billionaires at all.
 
Anyways, right wing art can’t really exist outside of very small niches because the left wing controls pretty much every major art/entertainment production house and distribution network in the west with a totalitarian death grip, and right wing rich people will not invest in creating their own mass market distribution network for anything that’s not talk radio.

Once again, facts like this still makes me question why left wing circles still insist they're not getting "enough representation" or "being silenced by the fascists" when they have entire control on who gets to be a known artist or who gets the connections or any real chance of being part of the art/entertainment industry. It's entirely unfair and rigged to the bone but it's okay guys, they're The Good Guys so everything they do to people who don't 1000% conform to their ideals without questioning a single thing is entirely justified.

I do wish conservatives did more with their projects and pilots outside of trying to "trigger the libs" because it isn't 2016 anymore. Less funding on faux-family guy clones and more funding on actual good media that so happens to be made by a conservative. But that'll be the day.
 
Once again, facts like this still makes me question why left wing circles still insist they're not getting "enough representation" or "being silenced by the fascists" when they have entire control on who gets to be a known artist or who gets the connections or any real chance of being part of the art/entertainment industry. It's entirely unfair and rigged to the bone but it's okay guys, they're The Good Guys so everything they do to people who don't 1000% conform to their ideals without questioning a single thing is entirely justified.
At this point it’s nothing more than a religious incantation. Much like that pooner lawyer yelling “I can’t breathe” at the bailiffs while being physically removed, “representation” and “fascist” are basically magical incantations that the shitlib has been raised to believe have power. They did once, but that time is over.
 
A big part of why I fundamentally do not believe that you can reconcile with progressives is because of attitudes like this. They have completely gatekept anyone right of Mao out of the entertainment industry, most recently with gaming where they have very openly purged anyone who was normal from the industry so that it can be full of nutjobs. There is plenty of right wing art out there, if one cares to look for it, but even then that's oftentimes heavily suppressed utilizing progressive's global control of the financial industry; just look at Visa and Mastercard actively suppressing any art they disapprove of. Samuel Hyde had the second most popular show on Comedy Central, but once it came out that he supported Trump, he got canceled because ideology was far more important than profit or popularity.

There is a very good reason why these "people" are obsessed with corrupting every single piece of entertainment in existence, especially anything they deem as remotely traditional, conservative, Christian, normal, or uplifting. Look at how they are raping Lord of the Rings. Look at what they did to Wheel of Time. These "people" are inherently incapable of making anything new, which is why they have to parasitize the works of their betters, even as they claim they do not exist. They don't really make progressive propaganda, they just corrupt other people's creations into being a cruel mockery of what it once was; even when they get their hands on old progressive propaganda like Star Trek, they corrupt it into putrid swill like Starfleet Academy that would revolt the original creator.

This also isn't helped by how many conservatives do not comprehend the value of entertainment, and thus have largely surrendered American culture to their enemies, while coping with a lie that entertainment doesn't matter. If entertainment didn't matter, then progressives would not have spent hundreds of billions making their propaganda. There is also the purity spiralling, where entertainment isn't exactly what they want, so they reject it. My avatar is from an anime about a homogenous, blood and soil nation fighting against globohomo and communism while pushing a culture of pure meritocracy, but because the main character doesn't suit their tastes, it gets immediately dismissed. This is really common amongst self-professed "conservatives", which is a big part of why there isn't a larger industry. You would never get Ben Shapiro's The Daily Wire to collaborate with Mel Gibson's Icon Productions, for example.

"Conservative" entertainment and art absolutely exists, but it is very hard to get it to market and even harder to profit off of it. Even if you succeed at both, you can fully expect many people who should like what you made to write it off because one small element doesn't suit their tastes. Meanwhile, these same people will watch the latest nigger faggot humiliation simulator without an issue... It's definitely a complicated situation, but there is no universe where this art doesn't exist.
 
Hah! I just looked up something about Cormac McCarthy (I was curious about patronage he may have received), and Wikipedia gave me a textbook example here:

While living in the French Quarter in New Orleans, McCarthy was evicted from a $40-a-month room for failing to pay his rent.[12] When he traveled the country, McCarthy always carried a 100-watt bulb in his bag so he could read at night, no matter where he was sleeping.[15]

In the summer of 1965, using a Traveling Fellowship award from The American Academy of Arts and Letters, McCarthy shipped out aboard the liner Sylvania hoping to visit Ireland. On the ship, he met Englishwoman Anne DeLisle, who was working on the ship as a dancer and singer. In 1966, they were married in England. Also in 1966, he received a Rockefeller Foundation grant, which he used to travel around Southern Europe before landing in Ibiza, where he wrote his second novel, Outer Dark (1968). Afterward, he returned to the United States with his wife, where Outer Dark was published to generally favorable reviews.[27]

In 1969, the couple moved to Louisville, Tennessee, and purchased a dairy barn,[28] which McCarthy renovated, doing the stonework himself.[27] According to DeLisle, the couple lived in "total poverty", bathing in a lake. DeLisle claimed, "Someone would call up and offer him $2,000 to come speak at a university about his books. And he would tell them that everything he had to say was there on the page. So we would eat beans for another week."[12] While living in the barn, he wrote his next book, Child of God (1973).[29] Like Outer Dark before it, Child of God was set in southern Appalachia. In 1976, McCarthy separated from Anne DeLisle and moved to El Paso, Texas.[30]

In 1974, Richard Pearce of PBS contacted McCarthy and asked him to write the screenplay for an episode of Visions, a television drama series. Beginning in early 1975, and armed with only "a few photographs in the footnotes to a 1928 biography of a famous pre-Civil War industrialist William Gregg as inspiration", McCarthy and Pearce spent a year traveling the South to research the subject of industrialization there.[31] McCarthy completed the screenplay in 1976 and the episode, titled The Gardener's Son, aired on January 6, 1977. Numerous film festivals abroad screened it.[32] The episode was nominated for two Primetime Emmy awards in 1977.[31]

He struggled a good deal in his early years, but he also got money to travel and write, and subsequent fellowships and awards to supplement his income. He got most of that once he was a known quantity, but he got some, and once he was moving up in the world, he started getting opportunities like that TV deal (a year of research for a single episode). He wrote Blood Meridian in 1985, when he was already over 50. He was incredibly talented, and he might have made it without all that patronage while working a day job. Nobody can really tell. But that money probably helped a good deal to make him who he was.

Now imagine Zoomer McCarthy. No Traveling Fellowship Award (too male, too white, too straight), no Rockefeller Foundation Grant (same). Dead end job with long hours and shit pay (jeets and crazy women got the good ones). No agent interested in manuscripts from white men (this is apparently how publishing works today). Zoomer McCarthy, 24, is moderately active on Twitter. He writes his debut novel, Being a Zoomer Sucks, in his free time. It is published on Amazon, becomes moderately successful in his Twitter circles, earns him some fame and money. It's not enough to become full time, though, so his next novel may come out six years later, and he may just get his income stream cut off for no other reason than being the white devil. Does he get a TV deal? Does he write his magnum opus, No Country for Niggers? Let's check back in 30 years to see how that works out.
 
Back
Top Bottom