Originally posted by luftfluss "Liberal Arts"
That's of course, not what that means.
The phrase 'Liberal Arts' is about the idea that a broad-based education, including the arts and humanities, is a least as valid as the over-specialized within-ever-subdividing disciplines that would be basically about mostly studying one subject: rather like conservatives think that limiting people to fields they 'approve' of like, 'Just be technical,' or 'just be economic,' 'Just do math and a science' ...ie, what they think focuses people on immediate benefit, is supposed to be more 'efficient,' whereas having an idea of context and general development and connection and history and understanding is considered 'wasteful intellectualism' if not some kind of *threat.*
Of course, Mag's list there of 'Conservative celebrities is mostly about people who either aren't artists or are about *performing anger Or legalism.* (They might be disappointed to find out how many of those have come out in favor of marriage equality, conspicuously Clint Eastwood. )
Pretty thin, I think. Unless you're confusing 'success' with 'artistry.' And he's probably the most talented of the bunch. Though I did kind of have an odd crush on Amy Grant as a teen. The years since didn't seem to serve her well that way, though, of getting really all Evangelical Right and all. Be that as it may. I suppose it's pretty noteworthy in this case that it's a rare celebrity or artist that I ever found *less* interesting as they aged.
Anyway. Artistry and things like *humor* really do involve capacities like lateral thinking, empathy, sympathy, connecting different points of view, emotional acuity, expressiveness, sensitivity plus boundary-pushing... exploring new perspectives: none of which are things conservative ideology much values. In fact, often finds, along with the arts, to be suspicious if not actually *threatening.*
It's much like how conservative *humor* is usually limited to 'I'm mocking and insulting you, har har, you have 'no sense of humor' when you treat it as such.'
Right wing 'art' is also almost *invariably* constrained to formula, uniformity, even imposed by controls and ideological correctness. It's why they called it the 'Renaissance' when there was enough *money* involved for the allowed subject matter to expand, and for talented people to push those constraints. (And enough room to get away with it. Corporate formula doesn't often help, but rather tends to kill the spirit of stuff.)
I've always thought there was a certain balance at play in *societies* where a lot of great art comes from artists playing *against* and *within* constraints. ( 'The frame,' even. As a photographer, I've always related this to an idea of often being 'spoiled for choice' if I don't keep it tight. I also relate it to how, musically, I can pretty much pick up any instrument you hand me, and play with feeling, but I don't even have a very consistent sense of *time* in order to do the repetition.
But my poetry usually has rhyme, assonance, meter, etc. even patterns about how I break that.
)
But, especially by modern definitions, there's something about artistry that is *at odds* with conservative ideology and mindsets. Your Beethovens and Mozarts, even.... Really the 'punk rockers' of their times. This is a pattern that repeats, right down to the cliche of 'the greats' never being popular in their own times.
It's like the difference between being an Elvis fan in the Fifties or Johnny Cash or the Beatles in the *Sixties* versus some of who are on the bandwagon *this century.*