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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
