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.
 
It's not that Conservatives CAN'T make art, plenty have and still do, it's that "the arts" are already infested with progs. You either conform or get treated like a pariah, so most conservatives just never bother exploring art as their calling or just keep their mouths shut on the right topics if they do. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where art is infested with leftists and only leftists feel welcomed there, and it spirals like that so on and so fourth for decades on end until we reach current year.

You can get away with downright abysmal art so long as it has the correct message and motive behind it, but even masterpieces will be met with disdain if it has the wrong ones.

It's like asking "Why can't conservatives act/direct?" because righties are a rarity is Hollywood and the outright "right wing" projects are usually low-budget slop. It's not that they can't, they can and do, it's just an uphill battle should they try because leftoids enjoy turning every institution they weasel into into some kind of gay battleground.
Apocalypto-poster01.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
You are brilliantly correct and I would have sex with you. :tomgirl:

Politics can inspire art. Politics do not define art, the skill, the craft, the music, the words, the camerawork, the creation. Shit art is produced en mass and published by liberals who circlejerk their politics, but it isn't good art. Some rightwing people do the same, making a circlejerk out of shitty art for the masses because it has the right message. It's just bad all around.

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.
That's just making the good guys do more work and the bad guys do less or cheat. That's the same good/bad dichotomy with a different morality. In other conservative stories, it is Christians versus non-Christian (and Christians just dealing with faith and themselves of course), American patriots versus nazis or other invading force of evil, cops versus criminals. These are simple good versus evil tales from a conservative standpoint. That isn't bad, humans enjoy conflict between two groups and clear storytelling is fine. It's bizarre to say that right wing is more subtle in its morality when it really depends on the audience and the story they want to tell.

Mass media prefers good versus bad because most people want simple shit to watch to cool off after work. It's more impressive when a complex moral tale becomes popular for a reason and why they're fewer and farther in between. Companies like backing up simple stories better since it's a better chance it will resonate with the mass market = more money generated.

"Why can't conservatives make art?"

Why can't the left meme, Dave?
Memes are art. Genuinely. In 50 years I will be in charge of art history books and force them to comply.

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.
I am still not fucking reading Ayn Rand dude, I am sorry.

so most conservatives just never bother exploring art as their calling or just keep their mouths shut on the right topics if they do.
Pretty much. Even mild centerist shut the fuck up because they don't want to get run over by crazy hard lefts.

You can get away with downright abysmal art so long as it has the correct message and motive behind it, but even masterpieces will be met with disdain if it has the wrong ones.
A lot of people have this mentality when funding projects. If you look at popular Christian media, you have a range of good and bad. Some things are inexplicably funded not because the story/movie/art itself is good, but someone with money loved the message above all else. It's a problem where people in companies want to be preachers and look good towards their fellow left/right/christian/atheists/etc croonies. Left wing art is just more visible with it since they got hold of it first, and of course they should have their wallets held to the fire for it because most people are so fucking tired of it.

There's still right wing authors and artists making good money, but they tend to fade into the background or are more honored in smaller circles. Most left wing artists also don't get the spotlight, but right wingers don't because of aforementioned reasons.
 
Ghostbusters is a story about a bunch of academics starting a small business, facing real world struggles and thriving. The bad guys are government regulators and a secret rich guy cult that wants to bring about the end of the world. That's fucking based baby.
 
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 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 Ducik Dong.

The fag who wrote this article lacks media literacy.
i love the road its my favorite book
 
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.
Well, that's the problem isn't it? They technically exist, but no one is interested in them. You don't have book clubs, well livestreams, that talk about the artistic merits of their work. Meanwhile, people do talk about how shit The Acolyte or Starfleet Academy is. If I see a positive review of something, it's of something that aired 20 years ago at least.
 
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.
Chuds drawing pictures of themselves with a loving anime girl / furry wife, surrounded by children are Peak Good Media, by this metric (and they are)
 
It's bizarre to say that right wing is more subtle in its morality when it really depends on the audience and the story they want to tell.
I never said it's more subtle in its morality. It's more subtle in its vision; it's basic understanding of the world, and how it is formed and functions, and in its understanding of cause and effect, and the human condition.

A leftist vision is a vision of the world as being full of victims and villains, and of themselves as heros. If anything is bad, it's because of a villain, and has to be put right.

The vision of the right is a vision of a system. A vision were bad things exist and are inevitable and don't need solving.

Take for example the poor. To the left, the poor are victims or the rich, and the leftist must take the wealth from the rich and redistribute it to the poor to solve the problem.

To the right, a poor person is not a victim, and a rich person is not a villain. There is no conflict and no role for a hero. No story to be told from the perspective of the right. It is just systemic results of a free economy. You can't make a story about no conflict.

Sure you can make a story about one army fighting another, or a cop fighting a criminal, or a hero fighting a demon. But none of these will be considered conservative art. They are considering non political stories.
 
Minecraft was made by a man who leans right wing, same with Five Nights at Freddy's. One man got out of the industry as soon as he got offered several billions by a big corporate for his work. The other distanced himself from his own franchise after death threats directed towards his family by left wing radicals.

The composer for the Halo soundtrack was industry blacklisted for his politics even though he arguably made one of the most well known OST in the medium.

What we see is a common pattern where conservative artists are often pushed out of the scene despite their talent

I'm not much of a film geek, but I know conservative actors and directors need to keep a low profile unless they've achieved such success that they can't be ignored. I know Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood are among the few openly conservative directors.
Among the more hidden are Michael Bay who refuses to discuss national politics, but do promote Republican officials in his local area.
 
For anyone who has tried to craft a narrative, the themes tends to start forming later in the process than the other things, arising naturally from setting, characters, etc. Doing the other way around and starting out with a theme, especially one that isn't very abstract, is exceedingly difficult. It is why most partisan conservative art will go the way of God is not Dead. There are some exceptions like Ayn Rand, but nothing that The Daily Wire or Fox Nation funds is ever going to be one of those exceptions. (This works the other way around. You ask a leftie what media has the best LGBT representation and they aren't going to list some netflix wokeslop show produced from 2015-2025)

As for the more organic cases. conservatives values by definition align with what is viewed as normalcy and are therefore less likely to be flagged as political. While they're both stock characters, the chivalrous knight does not read as conservative as naturally as the scrappy underdog who stands up to the system reads as liberal. And novel or subversive ideas naturally draw interest to an artwork while again falling outside of those traditional social norms. That is why the most successful modern conservative art has come from more regressive rightwingers in the form of irreverent internet pieces like Soyjak and The Will Stancil Show

I don't think it is unreasonable to assert that the qualities that cause people pursue or patronize the arts have some correlation with a liberal disposition. Like if you went to highschool before the average 15 year old was a politisperg you could still get those vibes from the kids who were really into drawing. While both are virtuosos, If they were reborn 20 times each you'd conjecture someone like Walt Whitman would become a writer in more of those lives than someone like Dostoyevsky
 
I think its a valid question. I'd argue there's plenty of good "conservative" stuff coming out, like Space King
Is Space King really "conservative" when the entire schtick is to be transgressive against conventional "muh subversion (intentionally disappointing)" Hollywood writing norms? I think it's too late to call that conservative writing.
 
There is that as well, in both the political sphere and religious sphere as well.
View attachment 8778238
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.
A Christian metal band had their music pulled from Christian bookstores for... making a song about Revelation. It's a great song, by the way.
This sort of behavior killed the Christian industrial rock scene. The guy behind most of it, Klayton, got sick of the need to be a strict parent friendly product and left the industry.
 
The left cannot meme. Memes are art (some at least)
 
How would one even create modern conservative art? Anything racial is needlessly divisive and just asking to be blacklisted. Besides that family values or invoking Jesus is very standard and might as well be the norm.
 
Is Space King really "conservative" when the entire schtick is to be transgressive against conventional "muh subversion (intentionally disappointing)" Hollywood writing norms? I think it's too late to call that conservative writing.
Not really. It's just a byproduct of Tom and Don wanting to make something they love. And why would they make it gay subversive slop?
 
Because the left gave itself the unquestioned ability to declare what is and isn't art through the art schools and the professional critics circles becoming overwhelmingly prog-left-socialist.
It's partly this

There is no left or right wing art anymore. Most art forms are effectively dead and worse than dead. The visual arts are dominated by gallery shows and artists selling their personalities rather than the quality of their work. Art careers today are more often than not driven by party skills than artistic skills.
and this

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.
and this

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.
but mostly this.
When your mindset is "I want to keep things the way they are" or "I want to go back to the way things were" it's naturally going to be harder to create something new and interesting and that novelty likely won't be as rewarded due to your beliefs. So you end up in a situation where the types of people that have conservative views that ALSO have unique and novel ideas that would interest a normie and are ALSO willing to gamble on making the art knowing the social risks are exceptionally rare. Even when you do find one of those people they aren't usually able to further pursue their craft due to lack of patronage (or due to being deplatformed/debanked).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom