/lit/ - Literature

>>22557628
>It's not that the "right" suck at art, it'd that Conservatives suck at art
One thing I've noticed about right-wing artists from history who are held in high regard is that they were often weird and not typical of even a lot of rightists in their own day. A reactionary with talent, a strong sense of conviction, and a perspective that's "had it" with modernity can make for good art. Someone who's just trying to make excuses for the status quo probably isn't going to take any risks compared to someone who sees it as a total farce and that everything is going down the tubes. But most conservatives have art (and politics) lower on their list of priorities. What are they concerned about most? Their job. Their family. Their church.

>>22557674
>Most realist artists are leftists, generally. But idk what's going on in america. Historically, realism is a rightwing thing and leftist types denounced it in favor of throwing paint at blank canvases or calling bad technique "impressionism"
American social realism in the 1920s and 1930s. There were a lot of left-wing and left-leaning artists painting "common people" and workers and stuff like that. Regionalism too. A lot of them also got jobs painting murals for the WPA during the depression. It wasn't an official art style like what socialist realism became in the Soviet Union though. This is a rather left-wing perspective in a way because it's a depiction of the production process behind Hollywood.