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.
 
Isnt art a matter of perspective?

But maybe its because art as a vocation or hobby has been usurped, or I dare say, corrupted and conquered by leftist faggots who, having all the free time in the world because they don't have jobs or families, have been allowed dig the biggest shit nuggets out of their dilated assholes, slap it down on the table of humanity and say 'behold my creation art,' clap for me and ass pat me.

Every blue haired ,no lens in the frame glasses wearing, liberal twat has a degree or a certification in a none degree like digital creation. And fancies themselves an artist.

The market is flooded with common garbage (if that's all you see what's your comparison?) because all their lives theyre told their finger paint art and prepubescent poetry and fan fiction is fuggin' awesome.

The faggot who wrote this probably thinks the greats of actual art like Michelangelo and Mozart are on the same level as that cock sucker who submerged a cross in an aquarium of piss and called it art. But hey what do I know Shakespeare was a trans lesbian black woman.

Except, oh no! Here comes AI!

Mother fucker, the melt down sperg outs I've seen on Facebook from lifties about how AI took er jobs is "stealing" art gigs is hilarious. It's funny to me that these talentless hacks are losing their shit over a machine that outclasses them by leagues of manufactured talent.

Perhaps it's because that all of us have ever known for decades is the bland meritocracy that has been 'Clock Work Orange' forced into our heads for years by these fucking leftist """artists""""" and have been told 'yup this is great' when really is just shit.

Then something like AI comes along and raises the bar of achievement and shows society how deprived they have been of 'art' because art has been yoked by a pestilence of soulless, talentless, cocksuckers. lol.

The better question, you chodsmoking cum stain, isn't 'wHY cANT coNsErVaTiVeS nOT cREaTe aRt' it's why do liberals think they can? And why are they so terrified of machine that can do it better?

Faggot.
 
Trying to keep people from reading it.
No it was comedy people that read it referencing shit from it. I still rember the time before eternal current year.
 
None of those industries have ever been something everyone was good at.

That being said when was the last time you listened to an album of AI generated music or sat down and watched an AI generated movie?

You haven't seen the AI's playlist of Indian songs yet, did you?


Put poopoo in the loo is better than Taylor Swift.
 
You haven't seen the AI's playlist of Indian songs yet, did you?


Put poopoo in the loo is better than Taylor Swift.
Those were still kind of made by people. AI music gen shit seems to be RNG musical paint on the wall based on people's input (mostly). There's some weird instances though like the video game cover stuff that's recently had an influx of eithe rpeople jamming shit through an ai machine to do covers simulating different styles without arranging them themselves or ai transcribing the notes and making covers based on that. One is a bit lower effort than the other and one sometimes pretends to be the other one but the ai hysteria people frame any use of ai stuff as as "oh the ai made it and it's stealing from artists!"


Speaking of ai and cover stuff weights is about to fucking die. so that's fun. RIP easy voice changer shitposts.
 
I might be over thinking this, but these might be unintentionally self-defeating statements. If these artist - driven works succeed in this medium, does it then mean that it was, in fact, consumer - demand driven? How would the writer measure success for an artistic form? Initially, he complains that conservatives don't create good art which, speaking of modern day art, I do agree with the statement in a vacuum. However, they seem to succeed to some degree regardless. So if we can't use demand - driven optics to determine if something is satisfactory artistically, then what do we use?
He wants you to use HIS APPROVAL, as all progressives do.
 
When lefties ask this, they’re noticing how left wing people gatekeep traditional artistic outlets, but can’t admit to themselves that’s when’s happening. Notice that in any space with no gatekeepers right wing art dominates. See: the left can’t meme.
 
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.
The left always inhabits the victim role (regardless of the facts) because the left is feminine in its nature and its concerns, not to mention its tactics.

Can you imagine a woman honestly saying, "Women, collectively, have it good enough, better than any women in history,"? (Outside of a rightoid incluencer on Twitter or some other woman trying to ingratiate herself with right-leaning people.) That's not how the fairer sex works. If they aren't (or at least don't have the option to be) in the role of "deprived victim," they won't have others doing things for them. That's what female power is, the ability to exert social pressure and get people to provide for you. They'll never give it up. They actually can't at a fundamental level. It's not worth getting angry about. It simply is. And we see identical behavior on the left.

We can aspire to gender neutrality in our though processes and behavior (in the same way we can try not to anthropomorphize non-human things and creatures)... but we'll never actually achieve it in a sustainable way. We are defined by our evolutionary programming.
 
If you want to look at right-wing art that is universally successful, these days you have to look to anime. Frieren for example is unabashedly right-wing, written by a woman and enormously popular. If you are good enough, people will happily line up to genocide demons and ignore leftists who whine about it.
 
Reminds me of this (x)

like hitler.png
 
Isnt art a matter of perspective?
I'd argue yes, but with the caveat that if things are gonna be open to critique (as feminists started with videogames), then there should be, dare I say, experts or something close to that in their field. I don't consider too many things art, because certain things just don't appeal to me or I don't find awe, beauty, majesty, or anything soul-stirring about it. You can crow all you want about how The Mona Lisa is a hugely influential piece of art, and all I see is a modern renaissance woman having her portrait painted. I know nothing about how pain supplies back then were made or used, I know nothing if it's wet-on-dry or wet-on-wet or anything about the brushstrokes Da Vinci used to paint. The experts can clamor all they want about it, but one of the biggest issues is that they're quick to criticize the dullards and never offer insight about why it's such a stellar piece. Meanwhile, I can admire the work put into the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel and say wow, that is awe inspiring; I still know nothing about how it was performed, but I can recognize it was a monumental feat and the art itself is capable of stirring feelings, even in my dullard brain.

A problem is there are too many trained or experts with opinions in modern day, wanting to offer critique, often at the expense of their political others. The other problem is the work or art as it's often portrayed as, seems to have been subverted so much, I find myself wanting to stab anyone who wants to call anything art, especially those who use art as a reason to open it up for critique. I've seen period blood stains, watched women screech incoherently, and seen a banana taped to a wall be passed as some form of high art; pretending or even being granted authority as a master in art just means you should be starving in the streets. This is what left/progressive art has wrought, to subvert/deconstruct anything and everything, they are literally incapable of creating anything of value.

The left cannot meme, and with meme being art, we can conclude the left cannot create art.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[Modern art and all of its children is an attack on the soul, by coin counting bug hive dwelling commies. Beauty inspires people to do things, stealing that soul kills its people]
 
More and more I realize the reason why conservatives (and more especially, "anti-woke" autists) fail to make good art or good popular culture is for the same reasons why wokists and degenerates (but I repeat myself) make slop:

They lack empathy. You need to have empathy for your fellow man in order to write a believable story.

If you're just some autistic retard with a chip on his shoulder, anything you make will be repellent to normal, healthy people, that's just a fact.
 
Last edited:
All traditional artistic media are conservative. A good "conservative" or right wing artist, would have an artistic output no more alien to it's environment than the air we breathe.

Case in point: the Lord of the Rings. This is a quintessential piece of Anglo-Saxon art, written by a professor of Anglo-Saxon, who was strict Catholic and a supporter of Francisco Franco. There is no allegory present in his work. There are no obvious allusions to draw. It is an expression of the folk in the purest form. It is not meant to indoctrinate you or carry "the message", it is a mythos of our own, akin to Beowulf or King Arthur. It is something sprung forth from our ethnos and it's character.

If you're a right wing artist and people can tell your art is "right wing", you've failed.
 
Another example is Schumann. Schumann was a die hard German nationalist who draped himself in his German identity during the 1848 Revolutions. He was also fiercely antisemitic. But tell me what imagery does his most famous work Carnaval invoke? That of a resort town, or a masquerade ball. He wrote character pieces that never needed a word to tell you what they were about.

You would never decipher his political inclinations from the art alone, but the resort towns of the Rhine and his pride in them, were absolutely central to his Romance.
 
There's a ton of conservative art, it just usually isn't labeled as such because conservatives don't bring up their politics in their work due to that being annoying lefty behavior and considered rude. Most of the Military SF book genre is pretty clearly conservative/rightwing, for instance.

Conservative works are generally more subtle with messaging, so it isn't as obvious. Conservatives have to hide due to the rampant biases of most of the entertainment industry. So you rarely get works openly described as rightwing by their creators.

Moreover, the Rightwing worldview just better reflects reality, so it tends to show up even in leftist works, despite their creators' intentions. This is why many Lefties who have actual talent accidentally make conservative characters or fill their works with rightwing plots.

As I've said before, GRRM is a massive bloated boomer lefty who's most famous work is a book series about a bunch of elite secular urbanites ignoring the border and dooming mankind to invasion by the evil hordes beyond the Wall, while all the "good-coded" characters are faithful conservatives (seen as backwards provincials by the elites) who demonstrate heroic virtues and who actually defend the border.

Then you have Rorschach, created by a crazy anarchistic magician to mock Steve Ditko's characters, only for him to become easily the most popular character simply by holding to very basic Conservative values like rejecting moral subjectivism and refusing to do nothing in the face of evil, unlike every other character.
 
Huh, that's an interesting way to look at it.

I'd also include JK Rowling in this. Sure, she's a leftist, but plenty of stuff in her books that's relatable to conservatives. Not to mention Voldemort is very much troon coded, long before transgenderism became mainstream.

Then there are conservatives like Scott Cawthon, who make apolitical stuff....and the fans apparently can't decide whether to masturbate to the characters he created, or cancel him for being an evil conservative.
 
Back
Top Bottom