Conservatism, "Wall-E" and art

The problem would not be merely finding conservative artists and writers. The problem would be getting exposure for them. There has always been a very real prejudice against conservatives in the art world, particularly among gallery owners who fear, rightly, anything that might lead to censorship. And that means that conservative artists would not have access to a significant public medium. And, frankly, the art buyers are not a particularly conservative lot.

Publishers have been just as bad, rejecting books that do not toe the party line of liberalism for many years until a number of conservative publishing houses grew up to force a change. There was a time when Henry Regnery was the only house that handled conservative material and had any form of decent distribution.

This is a variation on the theme of my response to being called a twit by one "Brian" on the giant Wall-E thread below. For too much of the modern conservative movement, politics has become more important than any other human endeavor. At least Buckley and others like him understood the value of the arts and culture separate from the political - or that's my impression - as forms of nourishment for the soul and as elements of a well ordered society, even if they failed to emphasize that importance in their polemical works. His successors - who were raised on politics and have fought only political battles (even when the causes were more cultural or social) - now apparently can't resist the temptation to which the left was once more prone to succumb, namely the subjection of every human pursuit to politics.

Thus, affection for political liberty from government meddling mutates into a relativism that can't countenance the proposition that some ways of living or of consuming or of eating are better than others. Affection for a political system that values a free market mutates into an intolerance for criticism of what the market values. Appropriate distaste for nanny-state regulations of what people eat transforms into an allergic reaction to people that suggest we should consider the effects of our eating patterns on our bodies, our communities, and on creation.

I've been feeling this frustration for quite a while, but for some reason, the intemperate reaction to Wall-E just pushed me round the bend. Perhaps it's just the proverbial straw - after all it's just a kids movie - but perhaps it's the realization that even my fellow conservatives have become incapable of enjoying a work of art simply for itself, of appreciating an entertaining, hyperbolic commentary on the human condition, of, quite simply, laughing at ourselves. One gets the impression that, if they were consistent, these folks would lambast Swift for his Modest Proposal by pointing out that nobody in England was seriously suggesting that Irish children be served in the finest banquet halls of the land and by arguing that, in fact, the famines in Ireland were primarily the product of Irish fecklessness and that English government policy should let the poor wretches starve. Never mind that one of Swift's goals was to prick the consciences of his readers to acts of private charity and, perhaps more importantly, that the satire, whether one agrees with its politics or not, is simply a work of art that borders on genius. This is boorishness of the first order.

These comments by Claes Ryn make good sense. Never heard of Claes Ryn before, but henceforth will look for this name.

Rod, I have one small quibble with your closing comment: "We need fewer conservative politicians, lawyers and businessmen, and more conservative writers and artists."

While I agree that we need more conservative writers and artists ... I disagree that we need FEWER conservative politicians, lawyers and businessman. We need more of everything conservative :-)

A lot of artists push limits - write about "not so nice" things - sometimes upend different "orthodoxies." Conservatives sometimes are upset by this; many think that art should be put to the service of preaching a particular party or religious line. I personally think Lolita is a profound book on so many levels - its prose; its scope; its moral vision. But conservatives are usually the first to vehemently condemn a book like Lolita.

How do conservative families nurture budding artists? Are they prevented from studying the nude in figure drawing? Are they kept from looking at classical art (up through the 19th century) because they might see nudes? Are they restricted in what they read, to preserve their "purity?" Are they encouraged to innovate, or pressed into adhering to "safe" classical forms that are considered "safe" today (yet weren't, when they first came out)? I'm not naming names or accusing anyone - just asking some basic questions about what conservatism *does* to encourage art.

stefanie,

You make some good points. I remember taking my very religious parents to an exhibit of religious art from the 13-19th centuries and having to hear my father complain about all the naked people in the paintings. On the other hand, I consider myself quite conservative and have no compunction about taking my daughter to similar exhibits. On the other hand, while I don't have a fully worked out theory of art - or of the Christian artists role - but it does seem to me that the problem you pose is a false dilemma. It's true that some forms of art that were consider classical were considered "unsafe" at the time of their production, but I would argue that this is not true of most works still considered parts of the canon today: In music, for example, Bach was sometimes criticized by the leaders of his church in his Leipzig years for the ornamentation and scale of his music (particularly the St. Matthew Passion), but not for the subversive nature of it; indeed, in the latter part of his life - when he composed some of the pieces for which he is most highly regarded even today - he was already being criticized by many as an old fuddy-duddy who was milking the last drops from the dry udder of Baroque style. And certainly your criticism arguably doesn't apply to much non-Western art, particularly prior to those cultures' contact with the West.

In other words, you propose a certain conception of art - as subversive, innovative, and fundamentally the expression of individual creativity - that is really rather recent and, I would argue, not necessarily any more valid than, say, that set forth by an Eric Gill or a Coomaraswamy, who saw art in its more traditional sense: As the expression of the aspirations and beliefs of a community. Now whether it's possible to nurture such artists in today's fragmented society is an open question, but in so far as much art in recent years has been subversive, wouldn't a return to prior forms itself be deemed subversive and "unsafe" by many members of the current arts establishment. (Note, e.g., what I understand to be, finally, signs of a return of representational painting, after many, many long years in the artistic wilderness.)

Well, one problem is that Conservatives have standards. All the great works of the past are a pretty hard act to follow. No wonder a young fellow might prefer to fish in Lake Mammon. But if you don't know or care about them, or think they're all creations of an evil and oppressive society, well then no problemo. Piss in a pot, stick a Crucifix in it, and you're on your way!

On the other hand, did anybody catch that article a few years back--I forget where--about how the artists trained in the former East Germany had to learn all the classical rules and techniques of Western art? Apparently, when the Wall came down, these artists had a strong competitive advantage over the ones in the West because their technical mastery seemed wildly avant garde. So maybe all is not lost.

Enough with the WallE, already. It's a good flick but it's doesn't convey anything not already given by the movie Idiocracy. I thought that movie did a better job of pointing out where stupidity and corporate greed and junk food will lead us.

MargaretE: I read your review & I don't think it was "unoriginal" at all. You were one of the few reviewers who observed that the Axiom people didn't raise their own children, and that there was as much critique of the "nanny state" as "environmental disaster."

Richard: - True re: non-Western art. But American and European young people being trained as artists are being trained in American/ Euro traditions, unless they deliberately break away from that.

Re: theories of art and individual expression: People's reasons for doing art are as valid as they wish to make them, and idiosyncratic, individual expression is one way to do it. I too am very tired of the trope of the "artist as Bohemian rebel." One of the most rebellious things a painter (for example) can do today is paint in the style of the Pre-Raphaelites or Bouguereau (if he or she can find anyone to teach them.)

I don't really have a "theory of art" either, except my observation that in this time and place, art is a commodity, dependent upon the marketplace and upon certain *limited* forms of expressions. (Please don't think that I believe *only* conservatives limit the subject and treatment of art - lberals in some ways are just as bad, if a work isn't "politically correct.")