Conservatives must preserve and pass on the riches of the past, but we must also be aware of and open to the opportunities of the present, so that the proper fusion of old and new will inspire and enable truly great art.
From time to time I publish on Twitter my view of the social media giant’s purpose: “Twitter: to enlighten, entertain and annoy.” Falling into the last purpose was a recent tweet asserting that “Conservatives can never create great art.”
A tweet is not a treatise, but the author of the annoying tweet never bothered to define what he considered to be “great art,” nor did he define “conservative.” The definition emerged when I read further down the thread of conversation.
“Great art” according to the tweeter, is by definition, subversive, radical, and destructive of the status quo. Conservatism—the ideology of the establishment is always hidebound, hierarchical, patriarchal, defensive, and oppressive. Great art can therefore never be produced by conservatives.
It can certainly be argued that what we consider “great art” has, from the nineteenth century onward, been radical and subversive. The Romantic movement—springing out of the revolutionary ideals of the Enlightenment—exalted innovation and the individualistic subversion of the bourgeois values of sedate European society. The bohemian and decadent aspects of Romanticism established immorality and a fascination with perversion and the occult as a new standard for “great art.”
The Romantics’ reliance on the individual’s emotions was combined with the cult of the artist as the unique individual whose inspiration and genius was the ultimate standard not only of art but of all things.
In The Crooked Timber of Humanity, Isaiah Berlin observes:
“In the realm of ethics, politics and aesthetics it was the authenticity and sincerity of the pursuit of inner goals that mattered; this applied equally to individuals and groups—states, nations, movements. This is most evident in the aesthetics of romanticism, where the notion of eternal models, a Platonic vision of ideal beauty, which the artist seeks to convey, however imperfectly, on canvas or in sound, is replaced by a passionate belief in spiritual freedom, individual creativity. The painter, the poet, the composer do not hold up a mirror to nature… but create not merely the meansbut the goals that they pursue; these goals represent the self-expression of the artist’s own unique, inner vision, to set aside which in response to the demands of some “external” voice—church, state, public opinion, family friends, arbiters of taste.”
“Great art” therefore is defined by the artist himself. If he is a uniquely gifted genius, then that in and of itself means that what he produces is “great art.” How do we know that he is a uniquely gifted artist? Because he is a revolutionary, a table-turner, a subversive, and a dangerous radical. The outcome of this idolization of the individual is that we are presented with the most outrageous, obscene, and blasphemous “artworks,” which must be great art simply because they offend.
Paradoxically then, great art is defined as being deliberately iconoclastic. In other words, “great art” destroys art.
Can a conservative create great art according to these standards? No and yes. No, he cannot because a conservative builds something great with the content and the tools bequeathed to him from the past. The conservative does not regard iconoclasm as the standard for great art. The conservative makes “conserves”—and conserves are made from the natural fruit of the earth with added sugar, heat, and hard labor.
When we at our parish were criticized for building a church in the Romanesque style because it was a pastiche, my architect explained, “It is like a sonnet. You write in an established form. Yes, it is a sonnet, but it is your sonnet. This is Romanesque, but it is our Romanesque.” So a conservative poet, architect, painter, or novelist stays within the time-tested forms and materials, but the great artist makes them his own and innovates and renews the form and materials from within the tradition.
In this way the conservative artist produces great art, but to stand the original tweet on its head, it is possible for the conservative artist today to produce great art within the tweeter’s definition. If great art is necessarily subversive, radical, and revolutionary, nothing is so subversive and revolutionary in the present cultural climate than to be conservative. When the vast majority of the media, the academic, publishing, and artistic establishment are “radical revolutionaries,” to be conservative is to be the true subversive. In a world of fugitives the one who returns home will seem to be running away.
With the present state of Western Culture, authentic imaginative conservatism is what Pope Benedict XVI called “a creative minority.” From that creative minority is springing a truly radical and subversive movement in education, media and the arts. For this to succeed, conservatives must preserve and pass on the riches of the past, but we must also be aware of and open to the opportunities of the present, so that the proper fusion of old and new will inspire and enable truly great art.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is courtesy of Pixabay.
“The Use and Abuse of Art”
Barzun
Keats wrote something about heard melodies being sweet but unheard melodies being sweeter. Polemics have little to do with beauty but beauty has everything to do with Art.
Wonderful article that is spot on. Of course, the irony is that the Tweeter is so unaware of the times in which we live that he would be appalled by the thought that conservatism is, in reality, the subversive philosophical movement of the day.
Just so. And it is the “radicals” that are the ho-hum conformists that parrot the orthodoxy they are taught.
Some of the Romantics themselves were kind of conservative though. Walter Scott might be an example. Several Romantics valued tradition if for its emotional and aesthetic qualities.
Very true, Thomas+Re. There are many sides to Romanticism, as to any historical movement. Fr. Longenecker was showing us only one side in this essay. While its true that Romanticism developed in part out of the egalitarian and radical ideals of the Enlightenment, it was also in part a reaction against Enlightenment rationalism. Romanticists tried to portray life as it really is rather than a stylized vision of life tied to generalized abstraction and formal rules. There was a part of Romanticism that was very friendly to traditional religion, including Catholicism. The revival of interest in medieval civilization came out of the Romantic movement. In some ways Romanticism was very congruent with the conservative philosophy of Edmund Burke, for example. There is much more that could be said about this. The book to read, by an enthusiastic advocate for Romanticism, is “Classic and Romantic” by Jacques Barzun.
We’ll said, sir. Sadly, the Counter Culture has become the Mainstream, so to stand against its tide is now a radical position.
Brilliant intervention!
Timelessness in any age.
As a political libertarian/conservative who is an artist, I tend to disagree with the idea that conservative art is exclusively about protecting tradition. The way I see it, liberals tend to do “propaganda” art promoting their side of issues (LBGQT, trans, global warming, anti-capitalism, etc,). I think this leaves a lot of room for inquiry into perception, consciousness, beauty, ontology, etc. While there is some overlap (ie. Nature), much of contemporary art is liberal as it is touting itself as virtuous (ie. “fighting the bad guys”). Still a lot of good and great art can come from liberals (ie. Succession on HBO is great despite it basically trying to show the bad side of conservative media owners). Liberal art is great when it transcends what it thinks it’s doing (improving the world) and inadvertently focuses on something more “traditional” like character. Conservative art can be “rote”, relying on standards that might have been once cutting-edge but now have been fully digested (ie. boring) to the curious mind.
I heartily agree that to work in the fine arts in a traditional style makes you a “bad boy in reverse,” and therefore, you actually are the true rebel against the establishment. But there is another criterion not mentioned here by which greatness may be measured – technique. It is far easier to pose as a rebel without having to endure the years of toil it takes to master the craft of traditional styles. In music, for example, it is far easier to compose with modern and postmodern techniques like minimalism, many of which can be learned in about an hour (I should know, having taught them for thirty years as a professor of music composition in a secular university), than to master classic tonal counterpoint, harmony, and form. In the mastery of the traditional techniques there can be an inherent and transcendent beauty and self-authenticating “greatness” that has nothing to do with whether or not it poses in some way as rebellious or radical. That is, it is great because of the coherence of its craft and not because of “what it is about.” Think of some novels whose greatness lies more in their exquisitely crafted prose than in the story line. But in my own experience in the current academic climate of fundamentalist-relativism, not even being subversive makes you great anymore, because greatness itself, as an abstract concept, is no longer accepted. It is only a construct of the oppressors to exalt themselves over the oppressed. I was instructed by the administration that it is now offensive to use in my classroom terms like “great music” and “masterpiece”, which reflect “white supremacy.”
Great article, very interesting, it makes you think! My favorite part “nothing is so subversive and revolutionary in the present cultural climate than to be conservative. When the vast majority of the media, the academic, publishing, and artistic establishment are “radical revolutionaries,” to be conservative is to be the true subversive. In a world of fugitives the one who returns home will seem to be running away”
I love the notion of the conservative artist creating conserves; it is a beautiful metaphor, inspiring for my own practice (though I am not conservative myself). Working with what you are given is the path to brilliant innovation.
I find that, as a generalization, liberal artists tend to create flat works. Devoid of soul, intrigue, technique, or refinement, the liberal artist tends to leave behind on their medium very little of substance. I think in the particular playground of Twitter, we run into these problems dialed up to eleven. I have seen many artists on Twitter–whose artworks mainly comprise of virtue signaling subject matters–complaining about or outright eschewing the basic fundamentals of art.
I am hopeful for this attitude among liberal artists to die out. The pendulum has swung, and I believe many liberals will wake up to the notion that attempting to hack away at the credibility, humanity, or livelihoods of anyone who thinks differently is not optimal. Just as well, a big ego does not produce great work. Not being able to learn from all other artists regardless of their politics suggests a mental blockage which I personally find antithetical to growth, anyway.
There are a lot of conservative artists whose work I admire and adore; many of these artists are commercial artists, employed in the media markets like comic books and cartoon shows. When I find opinion pieces about them on the net, any time a liberal wants to praise their technique, visual storytelling, aptitude, integrity, they must amend it with the acknowledgment that they disagree with their beliefs. Though phrased with less succinctness, and much less politely. Very aggravating.
This is a well-written article with a noble goal. I am all for conservative artists standing their ground. I would love to be able to learn and work harmoniously with artists coming from many perspectives and ideologies. We live in post-modern times. It is unbecoming of the times to reject one’s artistry on such bases as where they stand on the political compass.