Needed: A New Culture
posted at 9:15 pm on April 28, 2009 by Slublog
printer-friendly
Until recently, I had not heard of author Andrew Klavan. After watching this video, I picked up “Dynamite Road,” and was hooked from the first paragraph: “Killing the girl was worth forty-nine points. In a lot of ways, it was the easiest job the man called Ben Fry had ever had.” It’s not a book for everyone, as it contains some strong language and violence, but if you like books about gritty private eyes, it’s a great read.
Klavan is a rare creature – a conservative who works in the entertainment industry. He also writes a column at Pajamas Media, and his latest is thought provoking.
We need to build a New American Culture, and turn our backs on the culture of the state. We need to stop according respect or credence to reviews and awards that are used as social engineering tools to force the culture into anti-American state worship. We need to build an infra-structure of funding, review attention and awards to give praise, purpose and prestige to those artists who stand outside the MSM’s climate of opinion.It would be wrong to say too much about what such a New American Culture would look like. Individualism is the very essence of both conservatism and art. But I think we can say that such a culture would reflect and uplift the values and perspectives that made the west and America the greatest and freest places on the globe; it would put forward an image of man as our founders knew him to be, flawed and sinful yet capable of striving toward dignity and salvation through self-reliance and sacrifice.
Klavan’s words remind me of a quote by C.S. Lewis who said something along the lines of ‘what we need are not more Christian writers, but good writers who are Christian.’ I don’t quote that to suggest that only good art can come from believers, but I like the sentiment behind the statement. Too often, conservatives and Christians tend to isolate themselves from culture or create art that is too overtly political or religious while ignoring the fact that art needs to be good on its own merit in order to effectively communicate whatever message the artist is trying to send. As the abject failure of anti-Iraq war movies shows, preachiness doesn’t work.
Of course, the left will attempt to deride such an endeavor with the tired caveat they always use – creative people are free thinkers, and for that reason cannot help but be liberal…conservatives are simple thinkers while liberals are abstract…blah, blah freaking blah. The sad attempts to tie creativity to ideology are almost too transparent and desperate to take seriously. My three-year-old daughter has the ability to copy pictures she sees quite well, which I guess makes her liberal. But she also hates to share her toys (take that, socialism!) and her response to watching a wolf take down a baby caribou on Planet Earth was to say “The wolf is getting a snack,” which of course means she’s going to be a conservative.
Or perhaps I could just realize that trying to stuff my daughter into an ideological category based on her likes, dislikes and abilities is absurd. Artistic ability is not dependent upon one’s feelings on taxation or social issues. Some people can draw, sing, write or play instruments, others cannot. Such abilities have nothing to do with one’s particular views on political issues, nor should they.
What I like about this article is that Klavan understands culture matters. Art matters. It’s time to re-engage and just maybe, start to gain ground and eventually win.
Cross-posted at the home base.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Nice post.
Something else to consider is the fact that art is sometimes seen as antithetical to capitalism and commercialism. Capitalism rewards productivity and talent, while socialism supports artists regardless of success. Perhaps if it’s framed that way it becomes clear that a culture of government largess is the friend of the less talented.
I love entertainment and it’s a shame that in that industry conservatives sometimes have to hide their beliefs for fear of losing one’s income. Big Hollywood is a great first step in breaking the left’s control of the public face of the entertainment industry. When being conservative in Hollywood is acceptable, we will see a change in national politics.
Stickeehands on April 28, 2009 at 9:43 PM
I think there’s a bit of a problem in being a professional artist. Art is to express truth, but you don’t find truth by being an artist. It’s a hard occupation to be grounded in… or treat like an occupation.
frankj on April 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM
There’s a few issues in all of that, but I do think there are enough conservatives in the creative fields yearning to break free where all they need is the canvas. Of course that’s 1/2 the issue, the other 1/2 being are they any good. No one cares about culture whether a movie, a tv show, a play or a piece of art unless it truly interests them and/or speaks to them.
I’ve personally thought about creating a conservative movie studio, complete with sets and the like. But myself being Jewish I’d like to see less “Christian” and more “Conservative values” programs. Shows that celebrate america, capitalism, freedom, etc more then religious movies. Those I think sell and appeal to a big audience.
But again I think we might be thinking too much in big picture terms. Maimodidies said that a fool looks at the torah and says “How can anyone learn all this?” but a wise man says “I’ll learn two laws today and tomorrow and on until I’ve learnt it all”.
It takes a few people in a few areas but a culture can be built
Defector01 on April 28, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Shut Up!
……… just kidding, I just had to write it. Excellent post.
Seven Percent Solution on April 28, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Slu, Peter Robinson interviewed Andrew Klavan for Uncommon Knowledge, too.
amerpundit on April 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM
“The devil has all the good songs”.
This truth has a double meaning today… which will make the majority of pompous p.c.-pimps seem boorish and tame and prissy, and in need of mockery.
The artists~ of all genres~ will tire of upholding the sacrosanct liberal icons of the culture, from Global Warming to “torture” memos, and will strike back.
You cannot rebel against the minority.
profitsbeard on April 28, 2009 at 10:16 PM
You’d like Culture Making, by Andy Crouch. I’ve not got very far into it yet, but his thesis is that instead of simply responding to (and as a result often inadvertently adapting to) changes in culture, Christians ought to have as a goal the creation of new culture.
TexasDan on April 28, 2009 at 10:19 PM
yea, but ed, yesterday you posted about a painting which was clearly lampooning obama deification syndrome, and you slammed it because you are so dogmatically suspicious of artists that you couldn’t read the sarcasm.
the best/worst movies lists you ran a while back were a display case of the conservative grassroots’ inability to read the ideological content of art.
i resisted the notion that conservatism and artistic innovation are incompatible for the first thirty years of my life. but i’ve been there, and i have to say: there’s no “blacklist” of conservative artists, there just are no conservative artists.
conservatives regard art as either big city pointy-headed stuff homos do instead of watching sports or something which happened 200 years ago.
who are the “blacklist”? game show hosts and guys who wrote one produced script. idle rich matrons who sculpt greek deities in connnecticut.
klaven, though he may be good at this, writes detective novels. nothing wrong with that, of course, but it’s hardly an exploration into edgy, unsafe new literary territory.
eh on April 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I like CS Lewis. Read many of his books. Totally agree with this statement.
I think there some in the church who think that unless all of their art (music, paintings, writings, etc) are overtly Christian they have sold out.
CS Lewis said something else that I have always remembered. There are never any “new” truths. The trick is to remember the old ones. We have to be reminded of things more often than be introduced to new things. that is actually what good art should do. One of the things, anyway. Remind us of what is real. What is important.
JellyToast on April 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM
oops, should’ve checked the byline. but you get the point.
eh on April 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I am an artist, and a libertarian/conservative. I could write a giant book on this exact subject. Right now, I’m too tired to type much. I’ve considered creating a blog of art criticism from a traditionalist/quality standpoint, perhaps even a conservative standpoint.
Slublog you should email me, we should continue the conversation some other time.
Dr. Manhattan on April 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM
dr. manhattan, before you crash out, lemme bounce this off of you.
most art is made by artists completely indifferent to ideology, but then becomes infused with ideology through the language of critique they have to justify their own creative decisions in.
eh on April 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM
this language, which comes into art from parallel intellectual disciplines, is what defines the ideological boundaries of art more than the behavior of working in the studio.
eh on April 28, 2009 at 10:57 PM
You can’t stand infront of Michelangelo’s Pieta and not ‘feel’ the piece. This Texan will admit to tears and the power of the sculpture left me in awe of the artist and the message. You could hardly classify Michelangelo as a conservative of his day. Sad, we find ourselves 500 years more ‘evolved’ and appreciate Elvis on felt.
Limerick on April 28, 2009 at 11:32 PM
One beauty of America was (and hopefully still is) that you can march to the beat of your own drummer, do what you want to do, and nobody cares unless you hurt other people. The other beauty of America is, when you go too far and hurt other people, Americans care. We Americans don’t want people to get hurt, and we’ll go after you. In too many nations, neither of those things are true.
RBMN on April 28, 2009 at 11:33 PM
+1
He may be an outlier, but my 15-year-old is in a punk rock band and their most popular song is “Stop Shoving Obama In My Face,” which he wrote. He is as rebellious as they come and he hates socialism and fascism — and he will be a voter in 2012.
rockmom on April 28, 2009 at 11:51 PM
nope.
progressives type “revolution” exclusively for the left. “revolution” is defined by them as overturning only “reactionary” paradigms, and so “revolution” moves in only one direction regardless of who the empowered elite is.
superficially, you are correct; progressive tropes and icons become universally tiresome. consider sally struthers, for example. the fall back is never onto conservatism, though. it is always to a more “sincere” or “authentic” progressiveism.
you will see in the coming years that when progressives take the reigns of power, they see no discontinuity in “rebelling” against disempowered opponents, continuing the siege against meek and isolated voices of opposition, because their goal is eliminationism.
they will often dissemble – for instance, the lie that the tea parties are “astroturf” directed by powerful elites – to justify their position as a goliath stomping a david. but this is not necessary. as organizations and icons of the opposition are defeated, there remains for the progressive a panoply of tokens (racism, greed, fear, etc.)the remnants can be consolidated under by which they can continue to justify their continued stomping on the dispersed and disempowered opposition.
eh on April 29, 2009 at 12:42 AM
It is possible we can have a counter culture to the elite media today. A few years ago I discovered that the movies that got the buzz and the awards… were really terrible. So I now know that if certain reviewers like it I won’t.
That’s how to battle the awards, etc. Learn the agenda and do the opposite.
petunia on April 29, 2009 at 12:55 AM
capital “a” art isn’t so much concerned with evoking emotion as it is about the philosophy of aesthetics and the relationship of the contrived image and object to the world it inhabits.
part of what alienates conservatives and most ordinary people from art is that the intellectual discipline behind it has diverged so far from the work itself that the image or object is practically incidental to itself. this is where we get the apocryphal “pile of rusty pipes” story, in which renovation debris in a museum is mistaken for art.
conservatives can acknowledge this as a problem to be solved in art – it would be rather rebellious to attempt to sew intent and content back onto the object displayed at this point – but it has to be done forthrightly. a “conservative art” must develop at the front door, through the parlor and finally back in the kitchen. further, the problem and that remedy would have to be meaningfully established.
you can’t, for instance, set up a “conservative artist guild” and expect anything to come of it. what you end up with is abominations like the half-hour news hour, which failed because it tried to create a topical comedy show despite the discipline of comedy. surnow hired some tv writers to come up with “conservative” jokes, hired non-comedy (and non-conservative) actors to deliver them. the result had the same level of authenticity as a potemkin villiage and was unfunny.
conservative think-tanker and columnist, julia gorin, makes a more sincere, individual effort, and similarly fails, because the craft of comedy is subordinate to ideology.
as much as conservatives would like to think so, liberal artists, comedians, writers, actors, etc. are not in those disciplines because they are liberals. at least not intentionally. the daily show is a comedy show first, made by people who are comedic performers and writers first, and liberals only incidentally.
so it must also be for some vision of “conservative art” to manifest itself.
eh on April 29, 2009 at 1:23 AM
The only art forms in America where the artist can openly be conservative or libertarian are science fiction, thriller fiction, and country and western music.
Anywhere else, if you are openly conservative, you’re dead meat.
Dhuka on April 29, 2009 at 1:32 AM
I paint and tend to associate with artists and art groups. I find that artists speak liberal talking points but have no passion for them. They have recognized that in order to be noticed by feature writers or culture commissars, conversation in politics is required.
It seems to me that the point of art is that it is what it is. Art Criticism is typically cryptic, self-important prose intended to justify the writer. I wonder if they write generic columns and insert the name of whoever.
Artists are actually children, still living in kindergarten.
billypaintbrush on April 29, 2009 at 6:31 AM
He sounds a lot like I did when I was 22 going on 59. It’s just another incarnation of “I don’t like playing with these other kids so I’m going and start my own club somewhere else and you guys can’t join.”.
You can’t lament social engineering on one hand and propose your flavor of social engineering as a solution. Reviews and awards are not there to encourage an anti-state POV; they’re promotional tools to make money.
The idea that an alternative entertainment universe is neccessary where conservative-sanctioned reviews and awards (overseen by whom, exactly?) are produced to encourage the production of conservative-sanctioned art just betrays your own motivations as an artist.
I happen to think we’d be better off with less recognition, less promotion, less box office gross receipts reporting, less fetishizing and glamourizing of individuals and process in the entertainment industry, less self-congratulatory and self-serving awards shows, less superficial politicizing of entertainment.
sanguine4 on April 29, 2009 at 6:45 AM
+1,000,000,000,000,000
Molding culture into a conservative mirror would amount to social engineering. Christian social engineering, to ends that may be more desirable than our current culture…but engineering nonetheless.
ernesto on April 29, 2009 at 6:53 AM
The left gained control of our country by controlling our culture, including our media and pop culture. If we’re going to regain control, then we’ll first have to restore the culture that values individualism over collectivism.
petefrt on April 29, 2009 at 7:14 AM
Cultural impact takes time, decades, to make. I’m talking about cultural hegemony. For example, most probably see the bumper sticker “Choose Life” and think it’s pro-life. But I ask, what is this communicating? The bumper sticker is saying “choose”, hence acknowledging the validity of the opposing side’s argument and conceding that life is fundamentally a choice. Here’s another example: Marxists seek to destroy the influence of the Christian patriarch, fathers in their homes. But, if Christian parents don’t wish to put their children in VBS, Sunday School, Youth Group, etc., then they are depriving their children, so our “church” culture tells us. Whatever happened to empowering fathers to disciple and catechize their own children, as is Biblically required of fathers? As with homeschooling, the common response from even “conservatives” is to leave it to the experts. “Conservatives” talk a lot about freedom, but to what end? If everyone in the country has a different perception of the nature of freedom and rights, then what does such talk accomplish? We must go deeper. We must transform the culture. We must change what our fellow citizens view as “common sense”. This takes years, decades, to accomplish. This happens in four places: 1) the home (to include education), 2) all forms of media, but especially the cinema, 3) the church, which means going back to true Christianity as opposed to “our best life now” or a “purpose-driven life”, and 4) through working within our sphere of influence to educate others.
Send_Me on April 29, 2009 at 7:31 AM
This might be where form follows function. I am an artist, therefore I must be a liberal. It would be interesting to do a survey of Hollywood types and campus mavens that asks politically neutral questions about Constitutional issues. My guess is that they would answer them in such a way as to make themselves appear to be conservative, but if you told them that they agreed with conservatives, they would need therapy for months to overcome the shock. When I teach Constitutional argument, my liberal students are amazed to find that they agree by more than half with my conservative students on many issues. I have seen both sides come to epiphanies over the abuse of our Constitution by both sides of the aisle in Congress. If only I could teach more than 15-30 students per semester. Sigh…
College Prof on April 29, 2009 at 8:11 AM
I would agree in many cases. Many artists do conceive of BS ideology while creating their works only to realize that there is no way anyone could read those things in the work, due to the work’s obtuse or abstract nature. This is why the “mission statement” or “artist statement” is so important to contemporary art-world darlings. These people should be writers, not visual artists. It would be like Herman Melville having to paint an explanation of Moby Dick in order for you to “get it.” As free-spirited as artists claim to be, they bind themselves intellectually and crush their own skills by desiring so strongly to please their critics, instead of pleasing their audiences.
Modern architecture is a good example of that, as shown clearly by Tom Wolfe in “From Bauhaus to Your House.”
I’ve found that most contemporary artists are collectivist authoritarians at heart. And yes, liberals, I suppose, in the modern sense of the word.
Dr. Manhattan on April 29, 2009 at 8:32 AM
I think stinginess is a socialist trait. The goal is for everyone to have the same crappy toys, not to share them.
bbhack on April 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM
One of the problems with “art” as it is currently defined (when definitions are allowed) is that it is supposed to “engage the viewers emotions” or “challenge the viewer”. Yeah. The problem with that is that the classical view of art “to open the viewer to a higher idea, to make the viewer think” or “to create an edifying experience” is completely lost. To put it simply: the art is about inducing base feelings not about thinking or edification; there is no sense of the sublime.
Modern art has no room for subtle ideas, it is all about hitting the viewer full strength in the face and getting the shock value of the encounter. It isn’t art your bring home and make part of your life, it is art you encounter once and then turn from. At the core of this is an educational system that doesn’t teach children to think for themselves, media that exists in tiny sound bites and a populace with an average attention span shorter than most insects.
I suppose I need to actually read the article now, because the above might be rather non sequitur.
darcee on April 29, 2009 at 9:22 AM
If I may offer a perspective: Art does not care one tiny bit about your ideology. Funny is funny, beautiful is beautiful. The very notion of conservative or Christian art is almost painfully wrongheaded to me.
Wanna know the best way to ensure that your piece will be quickly irrelevant? Make it overtly, purposefully political (or religious). It dates your work, and frankly, it’s cheap. Overtly political art is usually low art, IMO.
Art that touches on politics or is inspired by politics is another thing altogether. It’s the same thing with faith. It’s why there are so very many, MANY terrible “Christian Rock Bands.” The impulse of the faith community to require their children to listen to nothing but “Approved Bible Book Store Christian Music” is complicit in this, but it’s embarrassing to all of us. This does not mean that Christians are incapable of producing good rock (whatever some of the magazine columnists seem to think). The hardcore scene owes a lot to the band Zao and black metal enthusiasts will have a hard time denying the talents of Extol (Undeceived is an amazing album). But they’re not a “band as an outreach to our youth” – they’re creative Christians that are comfortable in their faith and draw inspiration from it as well as other sources.
Don’t set out to make religious or political art. Just make art and let whatever flows out of you be what it needs to be. Your work will, unerringly, reflect a part of you. If you’re a conservative chances are it will reflect that, though the effect may be extremely subtle. Which, frankly, is a good thing. People are best persuaded of truth when they’re just enjoying themselves and exploring things on their own.
Nobody likes being preached at except for the converted. Doing that may earn you accolades and backpats in your own echo chamber, but it’s rather hollow and meaningless elsewhere.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Spoken like a true art critic.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 29, 2009 at 11:17 AM