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.
 
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.

Its just their perpetual grift. "My art is fighting the fascists so give me more money." The artists on the left also do control things, but they also all compete with each other for money, patronage and influence. And often they use the "fascists are killing me" grift to get more attention individually.

To state another thing which may or may not be obvious, a big part of the reason we have shirt art today is the shit tastes and personalities of the people with lots of money who buy art. The art (or lack of art) is a direct reflection on the quality of the rich people we have.
 
Calarts and its beanmouth has been a catastrophe for the artist race, to the point a chatbot doodling is an existential threat.

There is no stakes beside beating the evil white dude and being gay.

It is barely art, done by comittee's and even that is an insult to soviet progpaganda, which somehow is edgier than the satanist super no one can tell me what to do but I ain't problematic y'all modern shit. The ultimate poser is the left wing rebel.
 
To state another thing which may or may not be obvious, a big part of the reason we have shirt art today is the shit tastes and personalities of the people with lots of money who buy art. The art (or lack of art) is a direct reflection on the quality of the rich people we have.

As always, the more "anti capitalistic" someone is, the higher the chance they're probably the most consoomerist people you'll ever meet.
 
Last edited:
You see this with the rabid foaming at the mouth rage every time the latest Star Wars or Star Trek show that "subverts" your expectations with (yet another!) gay Klingon or Corrupt Jedi Master fails to find an audience and they immediately go to blaming political parties for it.
Only time subversion was done well in Star Wars was with Knights of the Old Republic 2. Even then it was less about good versus evil and more about how the Jedi tendency to endlessly navel gaze has consequences.
 
I deeply wish the Morrisey guy still posted.

Today's nostalgia knapsack is stuffed to the gills with goodies made by ebil reactionaries. Blade Runner, a touchstone for cyberpunk and dystopias. Not sure anyone has the balls to say Kurosawa's life work has no artistic merit. Ingmar Bergman gave us a crusader playing chess with Death, symbolism up the ass and a creepy scene of the Danse Macabre. Bergman would take his hippie friends to political protests and stand across the street and jeer at them. Horror continually borrows and steals from Poe and Niggerman's owner. People read or watch film adaptations of Cormac McCarthy and feel something visceral, given they are reading something written by a devil. The guy who taught Gen-X how to be proper teenagers? John Hughes was pure niggerdeath and knew the correct way to portray celestials was to give the viewer Long Duck Dong.

The fag who wrote this article lacks media literacy.
I just started lurking again but you got me to download Tor Browser and log in, so, thank you?

Morrissey is charmingly naïve because on paper if you sell out theaters and are huge with Hispanic people here and in South America you should be able to get a record deal so he just doesn't understand why it was so hard when the music industry is desperate for money. But this is his new single:

"Notre-Dame, we know who tried to kill you
Notre-Dame, we know who tried to kill you
Notre-Dame, we will not be silent
Notre-Dame, we will not be silent
Before investigations
They said, "There's nothin' to see here"

My other pop culture role model is Mike Nelson from MST3K/Rifftrax who's Conservative and Christian, and he's said that if you're doing anything in pop culture arts it's pretty much you smiling silently while a room full of people denigrate everything you believe in. There are plently of Conservatives in the arts, they just do a good job blending in because that's part of being Christian, you have to embrace being persecuted. Video game music is a space like that, someone already provided some examples but a lot of composers are under the radar with their personal lives and opinions, with good reason.

And "Conservative" in that article is just a dog whistle (I love using their dumb terms against them) for straight White men. When we were shut out of everything else we started dominating standup comedy and podcasts, the only two things that didn't require corporate buy-in.

Shane Gillis is huge because he didn't freak out and grovel when he was canceled; he did the coolest thing, which was to say that everyone did exactly what they were supposed to do and it was no surprise. The jealous untalented theater kid combed through old podcasts to take a joke out of context, the lefty media made Shane the villain of the month, and corporate stooge Lorne Michaels fired him even though he didn't want to. So he went on to turn his podcast into the biggest earner on Patreon.

If we're given a fair shot we'll dominate because we have a rich cultural history to draw from so the only thing they can do is rig the system against us until we make our own system, then they complain about that.
 
Art, at least in what I’d consider the traditional sense, is a rarely even about the art these days. It’s about the artist. It’s about the gay ass political activism they partake in, and their personality and social media presence. No one cares about real talent anymore
 
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.
He wrote most of his books over a period of many years, Blood Meridian and Suttree took like decades in total, and he was dirt poor most of the time. He finally got handed a million dollars after Blood Meridian, and his real money started coming in once Oprah boosted him after All the Pretty Horses. The biggest obstacle to someone like him existing in writing again is that, as you note, he was a white male, and they simply won't publish one of those ever again, nor would someone like Oprah boost such a person again. He sent a manuscript to Albert Erskine who was Faulkner's editor and got his foot in the door that way, but these days you can't do that, Erskine is dead and his function has been entirely replaced by feminists who will only publish women and browns, and who lack all artistic taste. There would be countless examples of conservative-coded white male artists if not for institutional obstacles they face where women and browns find only open doors and booster steps. You have to be ten times better at the craft than any of your peers to get anywhere as a white male in the arts, and even then they try and filter you with humiliation rituals.
 
As always, the more "anti capitalistic" someone is, the higher the chance they're probably the most consoomerist people you'll ever meet.
They believe "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" so they just go whole hog like a suicide bomber sinning before the explosion.
 
Birth of a Nation laid the fundamental framework for how every modern movie is shot and its literal Klan propaganda
 
They stopped creating art in the mid 20th century because:

- the Patrons were all kikes who wanted niggers to sing about killing themselves knowing niggers are too stupid to see the self-destructive art for what it is. Same for degeneracy on whites. If it wasn’t the deconstruction of societal values, they weren’t interested and good luck getting a patron that wasn’t a slimey televangelist to support your works and defend you from the barrage of media attacks calling you “uncool”.

- Conservatives abandoned the institutions of culture and art to do more “practical” pursuits. The new owners of said institutions are no so easily going to drop the reigns.
 
Contemporary ‘art’ is worthless shit like people sharting paint onto canvas, duct-taping bananas to walls, and The Acolyte. Conservatives are busy building roads, houses, power plants, hospitals, and desperately trying to mitigate the damage progressivism is doing to the ability to build a unified nation with a shared culture.
Progressivism requires social division and the exacerbation of grievances by appealing to tiny demographics, then promising them ‘intersectionality’ as a substitute for unity.
Conservatism is generally meritocratic and asks people to unite behind commonalities despite differences. Conservatives will get around to creating ‘art’ when the damage done to society by progressivism is repaired.
 
What fucking art?
Anyway, it costs too much fucking money to live so nobody has enough spare time or energy in what little time they can spare to develop skills. Nobody is becoming an artist except trust fund nigger-jews whose entire family tree votes for leftism. People who live in reality have to deal with reality.
 
Normal people are too busy working their asses off to afford a 40 percent rise in the cost of living, so they don't have time to create art, leaving only young people and university faggot types who have the time to create art.

Any art that is created by normal people gets ignored or criticized by lefty cultural gatekeepers who are too untalented to make art themselves, but who have the spare time to engage in gatekeeping.

Conservative Art is White art, and everything White gets shit on these days.

People prefer doomscrolling and gaming to seeking out challenging works of art. If you want art to sell, you have to either put porn in it, or fill it with retarded shipping.

Edit: ~ninja'd by jertzog.
 
They do. After all, it disturbs the comfortable.
 
Last edited:
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.
Yeah, At its core, Ladyballers is just an unfunny version of White Chicks. More to the point, Daily Wire is supposed to address the producer side of conservative art, but they are no Miramax where they fund all kinds of weird, low budget independent movies like Scary Movie, Sin City, and Good Will Hunting. With Daily Wire, it's going to be something Ben Shapiro or Jeremy Boring approved of, people that think studying art is dumb. They are the network for explicitly Right-wing content and it's as limited as the Christian Rock stuff that came before.
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.

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.

I been asking @FROG this same question for 6 years! where is My reighnbro Brite book?
And that's another core problem with Right-wing artists like Ethan Van Scriver (@FROG); their reputation isn't that good as far as business is concerned. When the product is meh and the exposure is low and the delivery is dodgy, it doesn't grow. The American Right wing also don't study current market art trends and wonder why anime is doing so well and has such a passionate fanbase.

You can complain about Lefty gatekeeping all you want, that doesn't excuse weak business practices on your own end.
 
Back
Top Bottom