Where's all the right-leaning creatives? -

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
A big reason for it is that the personality traits that predict creativity also tend to predict left leaning politics. Creative people like to try new things and don't care much for stability. Liberals are the same thing.
Out of all politics, maybe libertarianism is the only one that is vaguely creative. The left wing is stuck for a century trying to force others to implement communism with no variation whatsoever. Even cuckservatives are at least somewhat pragmatic.
 

Let's Love Lain

mfw
kiwifarms.net
I hide my right wing beliefs. In fact, I keep any personal opinions separate from my creative work and accounts. I would suppose anybody that isn't completely ACAB/socialist/pronouns/marxist/lbtqpositive or whatever is likely to hold some centrist or right wing beliefs. I know some people that have pronouns in their bio that have told me they just do it to fit in right now because it's trendy and they don't actually care about it.
 

TheProdigalStunna

I'm not giving back the documents
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I answered this question about a year ago, and the answer remains the same:
As someone who has flirted with "right-wing" beliefs in the past (and still has a few conservative impulses), and a fan of the arts, the reason there are no great right-wing artists or entertainers today is because:

1. "Right-wing" isn't a coherent ideology or a set of beliefs. As a lot of other people pointed out, the four people you named have vastly different ideas.
2. What constitute right-wing thought today, especially in America, is not conducive to artistic value.

More on #2. "Right-wing" today means defending Liberalism, and Neoliberalism in particular. Economic Liberalism is largely based on accumulation and expansion, not the search for truth and beauty that is the basis the arts. The thought of someone like Ben Shapiro or Dennis Prager is largely about assuring you that Economic Liberalism isn't as bad as you think it is, and those that attack it are the problem. Great political art usually comes out of the desire that the paradigm we are living under needs to change, whether that change goes forward or backwards. Certainly, there were great right-wing artists of the past (arguably T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Dostoevsky, Balzac), but they weren't telling you how great capitalism is and how those that dislike it are the problem. Rather, they were illiberal and looked either to the pre-modern past or a revolutionary future as an antidote to the present conditions. No one wants to read a book or watch a movie telling you how great things are. That's how you get shit like Atlas Shrugged. As it currently stands, the Right has no coherent counter to liberalism, and even when it gets market-critical it tends to be so in a rather toothless way. The Left will beat them to that every time.

MDE: World Peace was kino, though.
 

CiaphasCain

𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕰𝖒𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖔𝖗 𝖕𝖗𝖔𝖙𝖊𝖈𝖙𝖘
kiwifarms.net
If they have the balls to talk about their opinions at all
Basically this. Most right-wing people, especially in large companies, keep their opinions buried deep and for good reason. Ring-wing opinions are seriously hated right now and businesses are far too scared to make any sort of statement or genuine criticism. Openly criticizing something like BLM or Transgenderism is a death sentence especially in a country like the United Kingdom where they'll literally cart you off to prison for wrongthink.
 

round robin

kiwifarms.net
The problem with the whole "if you don't know their opinions, they're probably right wing" idea, as correct as it may be, is that leftoids will use, and have used, that logic to assert that anyone who doesn't shout the BLM/ACAB creed unprompted is not a true believer and must be purged. It's a double-edged sword and not the answer to the modern lefty question.
 

Gaz Norfman

kiwifarms.net
It’s like at some point the right just gave up on letting the left have have fine art, arts grants, and art schools which left spaces for young leftists to make the kind of art that became more well known through the latter half of the 20th century. It doesn’t help that “conservative art” has a bad reputation of being Thomas Kincaid paintings, Pure Flix films, and CCM. On the surface level, right-leaning art seems like milquetoast conservative Christian kitsch.

That being said, there are right wing artists out there, but they’re a lot harder to find. There’s a “podcast” (it’s not really what you’d think of as a podcast, more like monthly sound art pieces) called Ghost Jail that I think is a good example of right wing fine art that actually feels like fine art (https://soundcloud.com/ghostjail), mostly due to its weirdness and the fact that it is a bit more transgressive than the paintings you can buy at a gun show.

Since the right has to walk a much finer line for what they create, I think the environment isn’t great for right leaning artists to make art that feels like art, is good, and won’t get destroyed for being “bigoted” in some contrived way. Hard to really market art like that since the more eyes you get on it, the harder the last one gets.
 

Jarolleon

kiwifarms.net
It refers to the fact that more and more organizations don't consist of people anymore. It's just a brand, a skeleton crew of full-time staffers, and then a legion of faceless, interchangeable piecework slaves and outsourced services. Journalism is a prime example in the creative field - apart from a few boutique publications it's largely about parasitizing the big internet platforms with the cheapest clickbait.
But now there's no organizational culture and no equivalent of "working your way up from the mailroom" - you can't grab onto the bottom rung of the business ladder from mopping the floor at an AWS datacenter or churning out listicles, any more than the LA waitress can work her way up to Hollywood.
I once saw a military historian say that at the turn of the 20th century, warfare changed from "arming the men" to "manning the arms". Sounds like the same is happening to more and more fields of endeavour.
This is something that's genuinely been bugging me for ages. One of the fuckiest things about my life, it seems, is that while my personal political beliefs and convictions lean right, any fandom I partake in is created and/or populated exclusively by lefties.
Cosplay is a hugbox of queer teens,
left-wing anarkiddies think any and all alternative fashion belongs to them by definition,
independent animation/video games are often created by people who through cultural coercion or genuine belief spout left-wing talking points on twitter,
and anything that gets a massive fanbase of people creating fan content tends to be mostly the kind that will attack or distance themselves from you if you criticize blm/transgenderism/what have you.
Meanwhile, What do I see happening creatively on the right?
Barely anything. If they have the balls to talk about their opinions at all, most likely the content they produce will be rambling youtube videos, because that's the one and only stake they have in any sort of media. And even then, when lefties make political content on youtube, like with breadtube, they make a big deal of it, wearing fancy costumes and having elaborate lighting in a 40+ min video essay, however shallow that extra layer of production value may be. Meanwhile, Jeremy from TheQuartering shits out 20 minute recordings of himself reading a news article, adding scant discussion of it, and calls it a day, rinse and repeat. Why is it that left-leaning people tend to create content that gets massively popular whereas I struggle to see anyone right of "floyd did nothing wrong" making an indie game/fanart of that indie game/webcomic/animation/cosplay/fashion statement, and moreover why doesn't it even get the chance to be popular, even if it has no political message behind it?
There's a subset of people like EVS, John Ringo and Vox Day who bank on being one of the few openly right-leaning creatives, I'd say those exceptions prove the rule. Oh, Raz0rfist once voiced a Shadow radio drama when he got a hold of the script, and wrong a novel that I never read so maybe that counts.

My guess for the reason is the increasing prevalence of university degrees in the population causing a greater proportion of creatives to have gone through the relevant university courses (which are filled with indoctrination as we all know). It's the same reason why every journalist is leftist except for a small handful of righties who make that distinction their entire brand. Also most of the media that inspired people to become creatives in the past few decades was leftist (i.e. Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, Hitchhiker's Guide, possibly Monty Python, &c. &c.), the only big exception being Lord of the Rings. Plus leftism appeals to the envy of the starving artist and the intellectual - the frustration that people less sophisticated than him do so much better materially, along with its value placed on self-expression.
 
Last edited:

Aaa0aaa0

batman is BLEEDING gotham dry!
kiwifarms.net
What about all the Christian moms on pinterest? The Christian music artists? The handymen and carvers? The Arabic speaking populace?

I feel like a lot of right wingers gravitate towards more practical crafts. Those don't always have big political sperging in them either (heard fiber arts was a bitch though).

I'm left leaning but not as far as the heads of the twitter art community try to be. Most people fall in line by either saying nothing or mimicking others as a defense mechanism. If you say lived in an islam ruled country who's artist all towed the virtues of islam, you too would appear to tow it as well even by virtue of silence. My left leaning friends would scream if they knew how much I post about troons here. Several of my followers would suddenly have a fatwa on me because of "terf" (really should just be gender critical) views, thus I am terf and deserve death. If I had money like JK Rowling I'd probably be like her.
 

Autopsy

kiwifarms.net
Out of all politics, maybe libertarianism is the only one that is vaguely creative. The left wing is stuck for a century trying to force others to implement communism with no variation whatsoever. Even cuckservatives are at least somewhat pragmatic.
Obvious reasons why, trying to fulfill social needs without being able to wave your hands and say "WE'LL MAKE AN AGENCY FOR IT!" requires a lot of thinking and exploring hypotheticals. Making an agency for it requires creativity too, if you want the agency to work, but neither left wingers or right wingers with statist views seem to care if anything works, they just want to have "an answer" and that's enough for one day.
Monarchists are pretty interesting/creative too, actually, even if monarchism is mostly a thought experiment at this point. To make a monarchy work, you need an entirely different set of hypotheticals than if you're a generic statist, since you can simply behead a monarch if he fucks up too visibly. As everyone should well realize by now, you can't actually behead a state without an even worse form of state replacing it.


My guess for the reason is the increasing prevalence of university degrees in the population causing a greater proportion of creatives to have gone through the relevant university courses (which are filled with indoctrination as we all know). It's the same reason why every journalist is leftist except for a small handful of righties who make that distinction their entire brand.
Leftism has preached that all actions, including art, should serve the purpose of social change, while there's far less moral imperative for conservatives & individualists to hawk their wares these days. Conservatives were much more open and vigorous in the early 20th century, enforcing moral and religious ideals, and that's the point- if you took a count of "leftists" in the 1930s, you'd be overwhelmingly underestimating leftist creativity, much like you'd underestimate right-wing creativity today. You have to consider not only the "quiet" partisans, but also the people who would join a community of artists, but lose interest, based on the belief they are unwanted. Relevant university courses, indoctrination, and intellectualism are secondary because when academia was right-wing, there were still left-wing artists, and now that academia is left-wing, there are still right-wing artists. I would still expect a difference in frequency of art and medium used between left- and right-wingers based on average personality and temperament, but not nearly so stark a gap as the early 20th century or today.
Consider that idea with regard to your comments on journalism, by the way. Journalism wasn't always an overwhelmingly left-wing field. In fact, it wasn't even mostly left-wing, until very recently indeed.

Also most of the media that inspired people to become creatives in the past few decades was leftist (i.e. Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, Hitchhiker's Guide, possibly Monty Python, &c. &c.), the only big exception being Lord of the Rings.
Your list is a bit brit-centric, but you may be missing the cart for the horse, many of these "leftist" examples are interpreted as being leftist when they tend to be individualistic and critical of government as a rule, not in pursuit of socialism or total anarchy. If you siphon out libertarians and egoists in general from being classified as the "right-wing," then a significant chunk of creatives drain out with them, but right now that is where they do belong, just based on social dynamics.

On the authors of these "leftist" works: half of Monty Python's membership was "apolitical" yet somehow allegedly very active in their personal politics (wink wink, nudge nudge), and of the vocal ones Cleese is a liberal in the sense that there were once liberals in Britain and now there aren't. In America, he would likely be cast as "right-wing." Douglas Adams never weighed in on politics openly, but he frequently mocked Labour over the years. Not that comedy speaks explicitly to belief, of course, but he was hardly a leftist partisan. William Hartnell, the first Doctor in Doctor Who, was known Tory, as was much of the British TV space at the time (the US being the same, very conservative until the fellow travelers muscled in). Newman wasn't openly much of anything, but Wilson (key to the show's educational foundation) was vaguely conservative.
Much of the interest and premise that drove the early Star Trek was written by conservatives, who Roddenberry had to periodically chase off, because they were interrupting his Maoist fantasy- not so with the actors, quite a few were quiet Republicans. Likewise with Star Wars, Leigh Brackett (Empire Strikes Back) is one notable writer who was another individualist sort but contemporarily pro-war (Vietnam) and generally conservative, not unlike a great many other early sci-fi writers of her time.
 

Jarolleon

kiwifarms.net
Obvious reasons why, trying to fulfill social needs without being able to wave your hands and say "WE'LL MAKE AN AGENCY FOR IT!" requires a lot of thinking and exploring hypotheticals. Making an agency for it requires creativity too, if you want the agency to work, but neither left wingers or right wingers with statist views seem to care if anything works, they just want to have "an answer" and that's enough for one day.
Monarchists are pretty interesting/creative too, actually, even if monarchism is mostly a thought experiment at this point. To make a monarchy work, you need an entirely different set of hypotheticals than if you're a generic statist, since you can simply behead a monarch if he fucks up too visibly. As everyone should well realize by now, you can't actually behead a state without an even worse form of state replacing it.



Leftism has preached that all actions, including art, should serve the purpose of social change, while there's far less moral imperative for conservatives & individualists to hawk their wares these days. Conservatives were much more open and vigorous in the early 20th century, enforcing moral and religious ideals, and that's the point- if you took a count of "leftists" in the 1930s, you'd be overwhelmingly underestimating leftist creativity, much like you'd underestimate right-wing creativity today. You have to consider not only the "quiet" partisans, but also the people who would join a community of artists, but lose interest, based on the belief they are unwanted. Relevant university courses, indoctrination, and intellectualism are secondary because when academia was right-wing, there were still left-wing artists, and now that academia is left-wing, there are still right-wing artists. I would still expect a difference in frequency of art and medium used between left- and right-wingers based on average personality and temperament, but not nearly so stark a gap as the early 20th century or today.
Consider that idea with regard to your comments on journalism, by the way. Journalism wasn't always an overwhelmingly left-wing field. In fact, it wasn't even mostly left-wing, until very recently indeed.


Your list is a bit brit-centric, but you may be missing the cart for the horse, many of these "leftist" examples are interpreted as being leftist when they tend to be individualistic and critical of government as a rule, not in pursuit of socialism or total anarchy. If you siphon out libertarians and egoists in general from being classified as the "right-wing," then a significant chunk of creatives drain out with them, but right now that is where they do belong, just based on social dynamics.

On the authors of these "leftist" works: half of Monty Python's membership was "apolitical" yet somehow allegedly very active in their personal politics (wink wink, nudge nudge), and of the vocal ones Cleese is a liberal in the sense that there were once liberals in Britain and now there aren't. In America, he would likely be cast as "right-wing." Douglas Adams never weighed in on politics openly, but he frequently mocked Labour over the years. Not that comedy speaks explicitly to belief, of course, but he was hardly a leftist partisan. William Hartnell, the first Doctor in Doctor Who, was known Tory, as was much of the British TV space at the time (the US being the same, very conservative until the fellow travelers muscled in). Newman wasn't openly much of anything, but Wilson (key to the show's educational foundation) was vaguely conservative.
Much of the interest and premise that drove the early Star Trek was written by conservatives, who Roddenberry had to periodically chase off, because they were interrupting his Maoist fantasy- not so with the actors, quite a few were quiet Republicans. Likewise with Star Wars, Leigh Brackett (Empire Strikes Back) is one notable writer who was another individualist sort but contemporarily pro-war (Vietnam) and generally conservative, not unlike a great many other early sci-fi writers of her time.
What I mean is that academia's influence on the arts is greater now because of higher enrolment rates, though I'm too lazy to check the percentage of famous artists with formal university-level education in the arts throughout the ages.
 

Autopsy

kiwifarms.net
What I mean is that academia's influence on the arts is greater now because of higher enrolment rates, though I'm too lazy to check the percentage of famous artists with formal education in the arts throughout the ages.
Academia was overwhelmingly the font of right-wing and conservative viewpoints, as the owners of academia demanded it be so. Even now, most of the objective science fields trend right-wing, but a less extreme balance has been struck in many disciplines. I'm getting at the idea that the production of art from all manner of political leanings has seditiously continued, with varying quantities of people openly creating this art, no matter who is presently in control of the tools and ideas that would create it.
I'm also getting at the idea that the current leftist push is fairly unique, because it makes "social change through art/science/guns" a policy inherent to the political position, so it's no surprised that people are especially "quiet" this time around. Conservatives may have been obnoxious in America when the Klan was demanding a homogenous Christian social landscape, but there can be a Christianity without the Klan. It's not so clear there can be modern left-wing politics without vigorously enforced social change, even in art, since it is a moral imperative.
That idea was way less troublesome when leftists were still in the minority in editorial, publishing, and clearinghouse positions. Remains to be seen how far things will go down the hole now.
 

Compulsory Games

Scrub Mommy
kiwifarms.net
Leftism has preached that all actions, including art, should serve the purpose of social change, while there's far less moral imperative for conservatives & individualists to hawk their wares these days.
I'd argue that religious conservatives, or at least Christians, do have a moral imperative to produce art. The current leftist presence is unique, but only because art was used for centuries primarily as a vehicle to portray religious concepts. There can (and should) be Christianity without the Klan, but Christianity without art and beauty is just low church Protestantism, a stupid game that is currently reaping its own stupid prize in the culture war.
 

Autopsy

kiwifarms.net
I'd argue that religious conservatives, or at least Christians, do have a moral imperative to produce art. The current leftist presence is unique, but only because art was used for centuries primarily as a vehicle to portray religious concepts. There can (and should) be Christianity without the Klan, but Christianity without art and beauty is just low church Protestantism, a stupid game that is currently reaping its own stupid prize in the culture war.
I mean to say that they don't have an imperative to produce explicitly Christian art. At many intervals, the church was aniconic, which means art had to be beautiful but actually devoid of explicit religious symbolism. In this way, Christians may produce art, but only certain art is Evangelical, as in the early 1900s where heroic, patriotic, pro-Christian narratives were permitted to the exclusion of all others. That movement faded, obviously, with one last hurrah under Reagan and then nothing more.
Likewise, probably the most on-the-nose stuff for individualists was the sci-fi writing of the 50s and 60s, which was overwhelmingly various flavors of "Pulp Space Cowboy in Peril," "Aliens/Robots BTFO Statism," or "Ayn Rand goes to Jupiter."
There's nothing compelling these groups against making "neutral" or "safe" apolitical art, flowers and stain glass, but there absolutely is an imperative for leftists to make "leftist art" only.
 

Compulsory Games

Scrub Mommy
kiwifarms.net
At many intervals, the church was aniconic, which means art had to be beautiful but actually devoid of explicit religious symbolism. In this way, Christians may produce art, but only certain art is Evangelical, as in the early 1900s where heroic, patriotic, pro-Christian narratives were permitted to the exclusion of all others. That movement faded, obviously, with one last hurrah under Reagan and then nothing more.
Which church? Which intervals? Aside from some highly specific historical periods (Byzantium under Leo III, for example, or Stalinist Russia) I can't think of a point at which Christians were explicitly told to avoid portraying religious themes in art. There are definitely instances of new modes and styles developing due to certain sects' repressive tendencies (Amish quilts, Shaker furniture), but these are exceptional.

"Evangelical arts" are a product of Protestantism, specifically American Protestantism, which developed alongside and shares a great deal in common with the advertising industry. I think this is what comes to mind when people think of "right-wing creativity." As a result, you end up with an entire thread of posts saying "people on the right are like x and people on the left are like y, and this is why there are no conservative artists."
 

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
5K
Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman's attempt at merging Planescape with Dragonlance (and which is way better than it has any right to be)
Replies
20
Views
2K
Top