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.
 
At this point liberal and conservative are misnomers. You merely have two neoliberal corpo parties fighting for their specific interpretation of the ideology. Neither of those sides care about making good art.
 
That's the problem. Tolkein, CS Lewis, Wolf, Dostoyevsky are all names constantly thrown in for the conservative side, but all are from 60+ years ago.

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.
 
This article is garbage, clearly they have never heard of modern political cartoonists.
 
This article is garbage, clearly they have never heard of modern political cartoonists.

I am not a huge fan of them, but Matt Walsh did make a children's book that did really well, and the work he does on his documentaries is quite well done. Those are works of art, even if Dave doesn't see it that way (or does, in which case it destroys his entire premise).

Hell, even randos like razorfist and yellowflash have comics and books. I am not sure of the quality of them, but that sure as shit seems like people on the right have works of art available.
 
There might be a point to trying to imitate that which was successful before as a failing strategy however that's more a symptom than the cause. The progressive content machine has that issue too especially recently.

Where culturally significant art is concerned (which can be commercial in nature), the primary issue is numbers, which is exacerbated by the "patron issue" pointed out already, but it's mostly numbers.

The proportion of each in liberal arts programs at a most grugnalysis retard level metric for one, but that metric even kind of misses the argument. Good art, even "commercial slop" can't be forced, it can be encouraged but it requires a confluence of a passionate and driven creator, a compelling inspiration, and a cultural moment to accept their creation into the mainstream. The last one is almost entirely luck, and while the first two can be controlled for you still need someone to provide those elements. The people that can are, let's say 1/1000, but probably less. That 1/1000 has to be in a position to even try in the first place, which pushes proportions even slimmer.

Progressive dominance came from simply being able to produce more people and putting them in a position to try, and the only thing that seems to have changed on that side is the machine they built not encouraging actual talent by having standards conducive to creating a culturally significant product, no matter how hard they try to push it.

The one thing for conservatives is that the tools to create culturally significant art have democratized significantly over the years so it's easier than ever within common significant mediums, and self publishing on the internet always gives you a chance.
 
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 that as well, in both the political sphere and religious sphere as well.
Screenshot_20251021-162015_Substack.jpg
This purity spiral helps no one and lets the left dominate culture again and again, with little breaks in between for the right to slightly soak in.
 
Last edited:
It's not like they don't exist they just don't care about making shit for them. The lot of us don't feel like using art to mouth off about politics day and night and many more people I know and speak to would rather create things that just speak for themselves. I would go as far to say that we are blessed to have a community of people willing to uphold the dignity of their work than use it to continue fueling the endless competitive shouting matches for neocons who don't respect artists no matter what camp. Also they are embarrassing.
 
I won't say the amount of art. Art can consist of lots of things that people might not normally consider, for example wood turning. How many leftist wood turners do you think there are?

But there is a definite gap in the amount of fiction created by the left and the right. When it comes to art related to fiction, such as books and movies and comics, there is definitely more explicitly leftist fiction than conservative fiction. This is easy to explain.

The leftist vision of the world is a simple one. There are good guys, bad buys and victims. The left are good guys, the right are bad guys, and the victims are any one who is worse off for any reason. Blacks are victims of whites, women are victims of men, the poor are victims of the rich. And the left are the saviours of the victims.

This is obviously a very simple world view, that easily lends itself to fictional stories.

The vision of the right is more subtle.

Instead of the poor being victims of the rich, that need to be saved by a hero, they are both simply participants in the free market, getting what they earn.

Blacks are not victims of whites that need saving. They just don't work as hard or as well.

How do you make a fictional story about a black person who doesn't work very hard and then gets the amount of reward then earned?
 
Null was complaining on MATI that leftists throw money at their people, and conservatives are hesitant to do the same thing for their side. They're conservative with their money, whereas liberals are...liberal with their money, seems obvious enough. I don't think this tendency is going to change any time soon. This is mirrored in the ways that spending happens in liberal and conservative states, also. If you conserve your money you won't go broke, but you also never win big on a gamble.
 
All the gen alpha memes are being made with music from my childhood because the music that's being made today sucks that much.
Me sitting back not worrying because prog rock from the late 60s and early 70s and timeless and uncorruptable.
 
At this point liberal and conservative are misnomers. You merely have two neoliberal corpo parties fighting for their specific interpretation of the ideology. Neither of those sides care about making good art.
someday a rain will come and wash all the sickos away
 
Because the Communist Jew Hollywood doesn't elevate right-wing art, thus leaving it spreading by word of mouth on various social media groups and forums. Anything the right makes doesn't get institutional support and is pretty much all grassroots.

No shitlib will ever know who the Tuttle Twins are.
 
Isn't that the book where some retard goes on a rant for like 60 fucking pages.
Just skip the rant like everyone else does. It's a kino story about the apocalypse that keeps getting closer and closer to being a reality with every passing year.
 
Back
Top Bottom