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.
 
Liberals dominate the art world because they took over the institutions that educate artists and eject anyone to the right of them by force from the art scene.
 
Modern conservatives can't create art because they don't stand for anything except a vague longing for an undefined status quo ante. Even Nazis and Fascists were capable of creating art like Futurism because they stood for something. Conservatism is just an exploitable political movement without an ideological core.
 
Do you guys think Harry Potter counts as conservative?
No.
It is quite frankly the liberal mindset in a world of magic.
4476.jpg
 
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.
I wouldn't call the creators "conservative", but Tom and Don have a right wing slant to their rethoric.
Like in their episode where they have to justify the humans in 40k where Don brings up that the only alternative to genociding hostile aliens is colonialism, where Tom then says that history disproves that notion because the result of colonialism is just bringing a bunch of blargblargs into the fold that subvert the imperial system. You start to wonder where a British person might get that idea
 
I wouldn't call the creators "conservative", but Tom and Don have a right wing slant to their rethoric.
Like in their episode where they have to justify the humans in 40k where Don brings up that the only alternative to genociding hostile aliens is colonialism, where Tom then says that history disproves that notion because the result of colonialism is just bringing a bunch of blargblargs into the fold that subvert the imperial system. You start to wonder where a British person might get that idea

If speaking of Games Workshop the original founders did got that idea. But with each one leaving and replace with a British leftist, GW no longer gets it.
 
If these artist - driven works succeed in this medium, does it then mean that it was, in fact, consumer - demand driven?
No, it means the works managed to resonate with an audience. What you're talking about is the sort of focus group committee garbage that led to Hollywood slop writing in the first place.
I imagine that many conservatives have had full time jobs from the get go so they haven’t been able to really have the luxury of even experimenting with art
Conservatives also tend to be pragmatically minded, thus many conservatives look down on it as a fruity endeavor or as a simple waste of time.
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?
I'm specifically referring to a Q&A where someone predicted that Space King was going to turn out to be a deadbeat with a beer belly (see: Fat Thor, Angry Birds, ect.) and they repudiated that idea as the kind of Hollywood shit you'd see in a shitty Star Wars movie and they were going to deliver a no-bullshit "what's on the tin" depiction of the character.
 
I'm specifically referring to a Q&A where someone predicted that Space King was going to turn out to be a deadbeat with a beer belly (see: Fat Thor, Angry Birds, ect.) and they repudiated that idea as the kind of Hollywood shit you'd see in a shitty Star Wars movie and they were going to deliver a no-bullshit "what's on the tin" depiction of the character.
Yeah, but that wasn't because of some sort of fuck you to modern media but more because that would just be really fucking lame. I still remember Tom's almost disgusted look on his face when he pointed out the only real subversion that could be done at this point is to play it straight, which is brutally accurate to these faggotry plagued times.
 
Is anybody making art now? There is very little genuine art being made and it’s been that way for a century or more.

Content, branding, propaganda and advertising is what is made now. Most of the actual attempts at art are made by soulless artists who mistake novelty for quality, supplanted beauty with subversion and are obsessed with deconstruction and the artistic institutions themselves are largely politically captured, engage in a great deal of intellectual fraud and act as commissaries of culture which they see as their political battleground.

As far as I can tell creating true art requires some mix of lived experiences, a sincere sense of transcendence, skill and a eye for the sublime. Most modern people lack these things and culture generally is effectively devoid all of these qualities. If I was to make something like St. Matthew’s Calling by Caravaggio you would see it as kitsch because you know I don’t occupy the headspace to make such a work of art sincerely.

As far as I am concerned culture has lost the ability to make art, in large part because marxist academics and the multitude of post-20th century art movements killed the very qualities required to produce art. All that is left now is novelty, propaganda, content and sexual gratification. Which is why all modern “art” is just some BS trying to be quirky, political messaging latching onto entertainment like a parasite, formulaic shite designed for mass appeal or pornography.

Conservatives aren’t making art for the same reason nobody is. Their romantic nostalgia for the past isn’t adequate enough to make art any more than progressive idiotic derision of the past is.
 
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.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cg75KSDjomoThis 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.
That rips.
But yeah, "conservative " art is either parent friendly or some form of "ebigly owning tha libtards" shit that cant stand on its own.
Did the greentext not load?
TL;DR Harry fights for the status quo and joins the Swamp.
 
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.
So a story where a town of working class men worked hard is surpressed by liberal nepobaby businessmen is a leftist story? I think your definition of conservatism is incredibly narrow. You have everyone from bible thumpers to hard atheists, white collar men to woodmen, stay at home moms to farm women, white to black to latino to asian... you're seeing conservatism in the narrow sense. Here's some things that might read as conservative to Americans in particular:
  • A story about abortion and a woman deciding to keep the baby even if it is under harder circumstances.
  • A story where rednecks are the heroes, like Tucker and Dale vs Evil
  • Stories that honor troops and portray the military positively
  • Stories that deal with removing big government regulations so a town can focus on its own problems its own way (federal versus state/local). It could be as simple as a king making towns across the nation he rules miserable by implementing strict laws that benefit one area and not another, and conflict resolution is achieved when the towns are able to enact their own laws under a smaller government branch (mayor or committee)
  • Stories that take current woke politics and mock them
  • Stories where a troon is a fuckin' rapist and a villain
  • Hell, you could make a conflict between two brothers about how one works to earn and the other leeches, and how this affects their relationship
This is all from an American perspective. Other countries have their own values they see as conservative.

There's stories where conservatives see themselves as the prosecuted victims too, or at least several IRL conservatives who whine they are a victim of the left or society in some way. They count, don't "no true Scottsman" me. The left isn't completely defined by the victim mentality either, but the main and loudest of the left wing today are the loud ones who can't stop whining. Some vote for things traditionally considered left leaning without seeing the world in victim mode, but I don't think I can convince you of that, and it is besides the point. Point is, the article was likely talking about the American view of conservatives and conservatism.


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.
BUT if the main character is in a polycule while doing it, is it still non-political? If the demon is a trans person who is trying to do some henious action, is it still non-political? Most stories are apolitical: it's the details or things that are shoved in by retards and wannabe revolutionaries as some big unsubtle anvil to the head about their beliefs. Most Marvel movies are apolitical with just extra woke points dotted everywhere. Same with other big named media.




I should say that right wing painting & drawing artists are a thing, they're just more likely to be in a local scene (where their politics can be obvious yet still paint landscapes and portraits), keep quite about their politics like we said before, serve a niche community, or choose to be in hobbies where it never comes up. It's not like woodworkers and warhammer painters have a reason to bring up politics.
 
the only real subversion that could be done at this point is to play it straight
The second-most annoying dead end that leftist curation of the arts have led to : Art must subvert expectations or norms, no exceptions. If you don't subvert? You've wasted our time and our resources. It leads to people believing a bucket with a hole in it that can't carry water is of more value to society than a functional one.

But the MOST annoying dead end is the idea that simply not liking something means you want it and it's creators destroyed and thus YOU are fair game for counter-destruction to prevent art falling to philistines.

And since reality and culture is obviously downstream from the creative arts? All eventually falling to FASCISTS as well!

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.
 
And the few who are able to get elbowed out of art scenes pretty quickly if you don’t conform right away. So they either quit or just don’t share
There are artists that lean right wing and just mostly shut the fuck up about it. You aren't going to get space in an art gallery, your book published, funding for your movie, etc, if you are open about your desire to see, for example, immigration halted and deportations accelerated.

As well as that, most moderately successful artists rely on teaching to pay the bills, which means having a lot of good will from academia and various festival organisers. And even the other attendees, as there have been numerous occasions in the last few years, where attendees have loudly boycotted a festival because a wrong-thinker was also booked to attend. And you don't even have to be right wing, extreme left wing but happens to understand that male and female are biologically distinct sexes, is enough to destroy whatever career you had, unless you are extremely successful. So people just keep their mouths shut.
 
No.
It is quite frankly the liberal mindset in a world of magic.
View attachment 8779104
I didn't know 4chan had breadtubers, because that greentext is one of the dumbest screeds trying to sound profound I've seen yet. Explain to me why such major social upheaval should be the responsibility of what is tantamount to a high school student? Because he survived a home invasion shooting?

Not to mention that Harry did start an insurrectionist movement, one called "Dumbledore's Army."

And the glazing of wizard Hitler Voldemort as the instigator of change. Change to what? Oh yes, making everything shitty about the Wizarding World even worse. :story:
 
The second-most annoying dead end that leftist curation of the arts have led to : Art must subvert expectations or norms, no exceptions. If you don't subvert? You've wasted our time and our resources. It leads to people believing a bucket with a hole in it that can't carry water is of more value to society than a functional one.

But the MOST annoying dead end is the idea that simply not liking something means you want it and it's creators destroyed and thus YOU are fair game for counter-destruction to prevent art falling to philistines.

And since reality and culture is obviously downstream from the creative arts? All eventually falling to FASCISTS as well!

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.
My biggest issue with modern subversion is it offers nothing in its place. It has no lesson or interesting point to make. There's no grand revelation or interesting thought to point out how the tales we love so much wouldn't always play out the same. Instead, it laughs at it. It even laughs at itself and demands you still consume its slop. Disgusting.
 
Back
Top Bottom