March 31, 2006
Conservatives in the Arts
Of all the living art critics there are two that I regularly find worth reading: Robert Hughes and Tyler Green. I have not been reading Modern Art Notes as often as I should, so I took a gander over there.
My biggest complaint about both of these critics is when they spill ink or pixels over the cost of works of art and the administrivia of museum governance. I will let them in on a secret: museums are not all that important for the world of living art. At least they shouldn't be. As much as I believe that people should see contemporary art, I don't find the museum the ideal setting. For one thing, the strength in a museum comes from collecting great works, and curators are notoriously inept at picking works that will stand beyond the faddishness of the times. Some do it better than others, but I am going to be more inclined to go to a museum to see what a curator, given the benefit of a few decades or centuries, makes of art that has not flashed in the pan and gone into sweet oblivion.
My second least favorite thing to read about is the politics of artists. Some artists were and are well-read and have thought about politics considerably. Most are not and tend to repeat whatever the chattering classes find fashionable at the moment. A painting just doesn't work in terms of arguing a political viewpoint. It might serve to inspire those who are already in the camp of the artist, but to enslave art to cheerleading is depressing.
However, Mr. Green brings up an interesting topic on politics and the arts here. Why is most art so leftist?
The answer is simple: a conservative artist does not see art as being a good vehicle for political debate, especially one that is reduced to a few loaded images to inspire the troops. The transformative nature of art is going to be in the realm of inspiring contemplation and reflection, something that runs contrary to the notion of art as a call to action.
Socially there is also the problem of the lack of interest in the arts among so-called conservatives who persist in seeing Beauty as superfluous, secondary to the material goals of the free market. Just as the left gives lip service to supporting the arts (so long as the arts are seen as good team players), the American right gives lip service to a few complaints that there are no conservatives involved in the arts.
If the American right wants a conservative voice in the arts, it will have to provide one. It doesn't really care that much, so it won't happen, and this is a good thing. While the arts don't need the silly agitprop of Kara Walker, they will receive equally useless service from a neo-Thomas Hart Benton.
The best approach for conservatives to take is Teddy Rooseveltian: speak softly and carry a big stick. Support artists who do what the arts do best, and let that art stand out in glorious contrast to the insipid crap that Judy Chicago and her ilk plop out on the art world.
Also, the most important thing for our culture is to see that our children get instruction in drawing. Even if the child does not go into any art-related field, the ability to draw is one of the most powerful ways that our great art traditions can be upheld. It is also the best way to, in the words of John Ruskin, "learn to love Nature...." and to "know how to appreciate the art of others."
In Ruskin's notice to his class he says it best:
"The teacher of landscape painting wishes it ot be generally understood by all his pupils, that the instruction given in his classes is not intented to fit them for becoming artists, or in any direct manner, to advance their skill in the occupations that they follow. They are taught drawing, primarily in order to direct their attnetion accurately to the beauty of God's work in the material universe; and secondly, that they may be enabled to record with some degree of truth, the forms and colour of objects, when such recording is is likely to be useful."
Now, obviously I believe that using many of Ruskin's methods can and will produce some artists capable of greatness, but drawing must also be seen as part of one's general education. If conservatives really care about the culture, drawing will have an integral part in the child's curriculum. Then we can talk about reclaiming our culture. Otherwise so-called conservative crankiness about the world of art is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Posted by erik at March 31, 2006 12:02 AMI could add that neo-tonalist music is right in the same camp as Kinkade, too.
But you are not reading carefully. I am identify this art being valued strictly by the marketplace as a pseudo-conservatism, in fact what it really is is Liberalism. The taste issue, which is where Kinkade's ilk come in, is certainly part of the cultural dreck that comes from Liberals trying desparately to cling to some notion of tradition, finding it all but wiped out, and then taking this schlocky stuff as its surrogate.
Where your analysis is really wrong is in tagging these pseudo-cons with being anti-enlightenment, for they are all about the so-called Enlightenment. It is their bedrock, their foundation. Absolute individual autonomy. It is why they are anti-art, anti-culture, and anti-academia, because these things all come with a history of the (for them) despised institutions.
But since there is a need for what these institutions provide, the pseudo-cons look to shams like Kinkade to fill the bill.
The left, on the other hand, is all about lip service to the arts, but have you noticed that just about every NPR affiliate has less and less music programming and more and more talk radio, much of it whining about the lack of support for the arts?
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at April 2, 2006 11:04 PMI think you're missing out on an even more obvious point: the macro-culture of the American right has long exhibited some strong anti-art, anti-enlightenment, anti-arts education, and anti-academic leanings. How is a viable conservative expression in art to emerge in an environment that sees artistic freedom (and especially any public investment in it) as a problem to begin with?
And I'm not just talking about the trailer-dwelling sheeple who want the NEA's budget slashed every time they hear of something that offends their myopic WASP sensibilities. It is a pervasive attitude of trickle-up ignorance that permeates the entire right's thinking about art. When art is only valued to the extent of market demand, you conservative Christians get what you deserve with the little Victorian cottages that glow and puppies with big eyes. Kinkade's stuff could be seen as the kind of anti-intellectual right-wing voice in the art world, whose lack you seem to be decrying.