Cuckservatives will seethe about culture being degenerate then seethe that culture is degenerate.
Cuckservatives love losing.
Given these facts, it's no surprise they've attacked me more than the soycattle have, and then make surprised electric rodent faces when I fight back.
Because the fact is, if your work does exalt thing such as Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, you exist in stark opposition to the NPCs on both sides of the false dichotomy, with the left invoking the epic Doritos meme - that is, pretending that low quality snack foods are more important than the real and substantial things that can only be offered by works of fiction while the right will seethe that you embrace true tradition.
Thus, anything remotely based must reject both, and more importantly accept that they aren't in it for the money, but to send a message.
Conservatism has conserved nothing. We must stand firm with the idea of traditional art, and not compromise on that point a single inch. If this Klavan guy really wanted such art, given his father's connections there'd be plenty of shows and movies already made, it is about time that they stopped aping at resistance and get out of the way. It is also time for neopatronism as you have said, well-said.
Rather than telling a good story, or making something beautiful, the ideologue is more interested in converts to his philosophy. Thats why his work is propaganda rather than art.
Hollywood used to understand that telling a good story was paramount, so they only feed us the subversion in small doses. Now they're fullblown propaganda films pushing an agenda. Its also why almost everything they make these days is unwatchable.
Conservative Inc. wants to mimic them, because they're (I hate using this word because of the communists, but its apt) reactionary.
But, its never been easier to make good, true and beautiful art. Therefore, let us shake the dust off of our feet at them, and make awesome things.
Putting aside the fact that most, if not all, of this self professed "conservative art" being pumped out by elements of the mainstream is nothing more than another spoonful of unipartyist controlled opposition meant to keep certain elements in the public placid and distracted, there exists a single glaring fact which is near universally overlooked by those who are all too happy to see this swill churned out:
It defines itself only by what it claims to oppose.
Take, for example, the source of the image use at the start of your article: Mr. Birchum. That show was actively advertised as an "anti-woke sitcom" meant to "own the libs." This is, in effect, no different than the way that the current mainstream cultural hegemon tends to describe female characters by labeling them as everything that they aren't. Just as, say, the Rachel Ziegler version of Snow White "isn't gonna be saved by the prince" and "isn't looking for true love" and "doesn't need a man to save her" etc. etc. etc. Mr. Birchum and similar pieces of "conservative art" are defined by nothing more than allegedly not being left. (Funny enough, I almost typed it as Snow Wight by accident. Appropriate, given how rapidly Disney had to attempt a revivification of that concept's corpse in a desperate bid to save it after Ziegler's garbage attitude promptly destroyed it in the public eye.)
This common approach then leads to common problems: limited shelf life, (for want of a better term) low entertainment and cultural value, poor reach outside of a very small core circle that will accept it strictly on ideological terms, and so on. On both sides of this thoroughly tarnished coin, we ultimately end up with poorly packaged political messaging with an expiration date firmly affixed to it. There is nothing of substance or value present on either side of this coin, nothing which will stand the test of time. This is because the core reasons this sort of "art" is created are firmly affixed in motives that are as far removed from a genuine desire to create as they can be. These poor imitations of artistic endeavor only exist so their creators can snatch a quick buck and pat themselves on the back while the fools who blindly support them clap and honk like sea lions in a circus, and the fools who blindly hate them squawk, stomp, and shit themselves like a bunch of angry geese.
First problem is there's no such thing as an out gay conservative. Gays made the best art when they used beauty to try and mask their degeneracy. So, as they say, "I just can't" with Klavan. Second problem is that women are slavish to trends, and given that they rule the culture right now, we will not go back until they do.
Based content creator here.
The facts are:
Cuckservatives will seethe about culture being degenerate then seethe that culture is degenerate.
Cuckservatives love losing.
Given these facts, it's no surprise they've attacked me more than the soycattle have, and then make surprised electric rodent faces when I fight back.
Because the fact is, if your work does exalt thing such as Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, you exist in stark opposition to the NPCs on both sides of the false dichotomy, with the left invoking the epic Doritos meme - that is, pretending that low quality snack foods are more important than the real and substantial things that can only be offered by works of fiction while the right will seethe that you embrace true tradition.
Thus, anything remotely based must reject both, and more importantly accept that they aren't in it for the money, but to send a message.
Conservatism has conserved nothing. We must stand firm with the idea of traditional art, and not compromise on that point a single inch. If this Klavan guy really wanted such art, given his father's connections there'd be plenty of shows and movies already made, it is about time that they stopped aping at resistance and get out of the way. It is also time for neopatronism as you have said, well-said.
Rather than telling a good story, or making something beautiful, the ideologue is more interested in converts to his philosophy. Thats why his work is propaganda rather than art.
Hollywood used to understand that telling a good story was paramount, so they only feed us the subversion in small doses. Now they're fullblown propaganda films pushing an agenda. Its also why almost everything they make these days is unwatchable.
Conservative Inc. wants to mimic them, because they're (I hate using this word because of the communists, but its apt) reactionary.
But, its never been easier to make good, true and beautiful art. Therefore, let us shake the dust off of our feet at them, and make awesome things.
Putting aside the fact that most, if not all, of this self professed "conservative art" being pumped out by elements of the mainstream is nothing more than another spoonful of unipartyist controlled opposition meant to keep certain elements in the public placid and distracted, there exists a single glaring fact which is near universally overlooked by those who are all too happy to see this swill churned out:
It defines itself only by what it claims to oppose.
Take, for example, the source of the image use at the start of your article: Mr. Birchum. That show was actively advertised as an "anti-woke sitcom" meant to "own the libs." This is, in effect, no different than the way that the current mainstream cultural hegemon tends to describe female characters by labeling them as everything that they aren't. Just as, say, the Rachel Ziegler version of Snow White "isn't gonna be saved by the prince" and "isn't looking for true love" and "doesn't need a man to save her" etc. etc. etc. Mr. Birchum and similar pieces of "conservative art" are defined by nothing more than allegedly not being left. (Funny enough, I almost typed it as Snow Wight by accident. Appropriate, given how rapidly Disney had to attempt a revivification of that concept's corpse in a desperate bid to save it after Ziegler's garbage attitude promptly destroyed it in the public eye.)
This common approach then leads to common problems: limited shelf life, (for want of a better term) low entertainment and cultural value, poor reach outside of a very small core circle that will accept it strictly on ideological terms, and so on. On both sides of this thoroughly tarnished coin, we ultimately end up with poorly packaged political messaging with an expiration date firmly affixed to it. There is nothing of substance or value present on either side of this coin, nothing which will stand the test of time. This is because the core reasons this sort of "art" is created are firmly affixed in motives that are as far removed from a genuine desire to create as they can be. These poor imitations of artistic endeavor only exist so their creators can snatch a quick buck and pat themselves on the back while the fools who blindly support them clap and honk like sea lions in a circus, and the fools who blindly hate them squawk, stomp, and shit themselves like a bunch of angry geese.
First problem is there's no such thing as an out gay conservative. Gays made the best art when they used beauty to try and mask their degeneracy. So, as they say, "I just can't" with Klavan. Second problem is that women are slavish to trends, and given that they rule the culture right now, we will not go back until they do.
And I agree with you.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
We need professional artists capable of making contact with the culture to rein in the worst fixations of the High Church Nerds.