Artists create better work when they leave politics out of their art.
Except maybe for Oliver Stone—but only on occasion (like JFK).
Henry Fonda was left wing.
just read that blogpost,
it immediately presumes that Shakespeare was liberal.
In fact, we know nothing at all about Shakespeare’s personal views.
This is just another instance (the presumption in the OP being another) of political factions trying to say that history’s great minds agree with their current political viewpoints.
wait, did the OP mean “right-winged” or “right-handed?”
because there’s some interesting research on that…
The sort of Republican I am referring to in this thread is someone who supports capitalism and is overwhelmingly concerned with individual monetary gain, to the detriment of others if need be. I am thinking of the sort of person who believes having a steady income is the key to happiness. This person I have conceptualized bitterly and condescendingly praises him or herself for having worked hard and embraced “responsibility” in order to live comfortably in their old age. Perhaps the sort of person that tells a younger “lazy” child in the family that one day they will learn the value of hard work. By the way, supporters of Democrats in this country are just as capitalistic, but they are generally the ones who made less money and are upset about it. The Democratic politicians are just as a posh and elitist as the Republican politicians, but rather than being honest about their true desires, they cater to the poor to gain votes.
I think one reason why people tend to think the OP is true, and I don’t mean to say that Rossi is guilty of this at all, is that they tend to associate art at least partially with the freedom to depict scenes of sexuality, violence and extreme behaviors. This leads to the idea that since modern American conservatives are assumed to be against such things more than liberals, most artists must be liberal.
Everyone here has proved this to be false, of course.
I don’t think I questioned what you meant by Republican (I sort of assumed you were using it as shorthand for a certain type of hypocritical neo-con).
I think you need to clarify more.
“wait, did the OP mean “right-winged” or “right-handed?”
because there’s some interesting research on that…"
I sense left-handed discrimination creeping into the thread …
haha, i said the research was interesting, I never said it had merit.
The repressed left handed population will rise up one day, mark my words.
Did you know that in some countries, school children are forced to write with their right hand whether it’s their stronger hand or not, and to me, that proves that all right handed people are fascists. There’s no debate on this matter; you’re a bunch of mini Mussolini’s repressing the minority with your right handed scissors and musical instruments!
well, it’s all murky and hard to quantify and it’s not really easily reducible but:
i think to be an artist requires compassion and empathy, ie honoring the human over the system s/he resides in. i find that – generally speaking – this leans more to the left than the right. i’m sure there are exceptions.
well, Welshy, getting students to write with their right hand makes sense in some cases.
Chinese characters are notoriously difficult to make when writing with the left hand.
as for me,
right-handed is synonymous with correct-handed.
The Republican I have in mind:
Supports capitalism, freedom of enterprise etc.
lacks an interest in intellectual pursuits, travel, etc. (This, I believe to simply be a stereotype)
By the way, I was not saying it was an oxymoron. I was asking others if they believed to be an oxymoron.
It’s perfectly possible to be both pro-life and artistic. I’m sure there are artists who are against illegal immigration.
A Republican, in my opinion, is also fiscally conservative. They can be racist, but not necessarily. There are plenty of racist Democrats, as well, but they were all pretty much alive and conscious before the civil rights movement took place.
Rossi, you’re really describing a very, very, very small minority of people.
I really don’t know where to begin explaining the flaws in your definition and the pointlessness of the question you pose.
Then how would you define it Rich?
I don’t what else to do short of buying a textbook on Republicans and transcribing it.
“Then how would you define it Rich?”
well, the question you pose in this thread is whether an individual can have politics that are right-of-center and still be artistic,
but then you qualify that question by saying that the individual you’re referring to is a very specific (and stereotypical) type of conservative: a white, male, wealthy, pro-life, corporatist, nationalist, narrow-minded, anti-intellectual American neo-conservative of 2010.
what kind of answer are you expecting? or do you just want people to agree with your dislike of this stereotypical individual?
Aside from the wealthy aspect, that stereotype is not very unusual in the United States
the stereotype isn’t unusual, but it’s still just a stereotype.
Clint Eastwood is a moderate, advocating the right to abortion, the notion of gay marriage, and while serving as a mayor in California his major actions were for environmental conservation. If the icon of “right-wing” America is on the “other side” of these issues, why try to be so confined in the definition of the “way” to be artistic. Are we writing a guide on how to be artsy?
I want to take this thread out back and shoot it.
I’m sure that there are more liberal artists than conservative artists (just being honest here) but it’s definitely not an oxymoron and your political views don’t dictate it.
I think that liberal ideologies may be more…accommodating to art.
No, ma, I’ll shoot it… it’s my dog.
well, before anyone takes this thread any further, someone needs define what the artists in question are “conservative” or “liberal” in relation to.
but for my money, let’s just kill the thread.
I am a communist so I tend to agree that most great artists were and are ‘left wing’ in that they are on the side of our class, they’re anti-authoritarian, anti-imperialist, against exploitation, bigotry, racism and tend to critique the social system we live under from the point of view of our (Proletarian) Class. Not very many great artists have created films in defense of dominant ruling class ideology. All films that spout Bourgeois Ideology tend to be those made by Michael Bay and his ilk, the make a buck quick cinema of hollywood, where Money is the end not art, all filmmakers with ambitions to create real art generally from my experience stay away from such banal trite. Not to say Right wing artists don’t exist, that would be absurd so no it isn’t an oxymoron but the prevailing majority are defenders of our class rather than their (Bourgeois) class.
I am absolutely against vulgar political preaching in any art form, not to say art can’t be political, the very opposite is true in that the interpretation of the world around us in some form or other is the purpose of art and everything we see around us is political in some way or another. But if a film makes political ambitions without any artistic vision then I have no time for it, pure agit-prop isn’t and can’t be art. The beauty of cinema is that it can show us interpretations of the world alien to us and allow us to see it in a whole new wonderful light and letting us to look at things differently, the audience must come to their own conclusions through this, their conclusions can’t be baseball batted against the audience’s head, such vulgar exposition is utterly repulsive to me. Almost all “political-filmmakers” I have no time for.
Also the Soviet Union, China, N Korea, Eastern Europe were not ‘left wing’ in the slightest, the ruling elites were ultra conservatives. Socialism is where the workers control and plan the economy themselves, not where a privileged ruling clique control and run it – instead of calling these awful reactionary systems socialist and rejecting the idea because of it, it’d be nice if people actual read some Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to see what Socialism actually is.
“After a screening of Minnie the other night, some guy asked me why I didn’t make an anti-war movie. Why did I want to make a movie about people getting married and being happy and in love with one another and all that? Well, why the fuck should I want to make a movie about a war? Pro or con? I’d rather deal with the longings of the mind, the heart. Life is men and women. Life isn’t, say, politics. Politicians are liars and corrupt by the very nature of what they do. I never voted in my life and don’t ever intend to. Politicians are only bad actors grubbing around for power. I’m never going to make any other pictures except about men and women. We always look for great causes, for answers. But, in my opinion, these people and these small emotions are the greatest political force their is. These small emotions, these character disagreements, are of vital necessity. I’m a revolutionary – but not in the political sense.”
- John Cassavetes
Ironically I’m just about to put on some Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes, which is wonderfully right wing haha – but it’s sooooo goooooood
Recent research shows that there is not conclusive proof to connect left-handedness with greater creativity. So, righties can be artistic too!
I believe Anne Rynd (sp?) was a conservative type, even though I didn’t read any of her books to be able to back it up.
Successful Left-wing artists keep most of their capital therefore are capitalists whether they admit it or not.