Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Richard Jackson's avatar

I'm not sure how new it is, but there's definitely a very visible swathe of the viewing/reading public whose main way of engaging with the art they consume is by determining what they want it to mean about them in the context of the culture war. The amusing bit is that, once works of art are emptied out and reworked as signifiers, that very emptiness makes it so they can signify pretty much anything. It's probably fun for a while to figure out how to demonstrate that everything I consider good evinces my politics and things that I don't like evince the politics of my enemies, and also somehow that popularity and financial success are positively correlated with both aesthetic quality and the extent to which a work evinces my politics, but it seems like a pretty boring way to enjoy art to me.

Fortunately I enjoy art in a virtuous way, unlike my philistine adversaries.

But of course, a walk around a red-blooded American town in the Heartland, the type of place coastal elites scoff at and hope dies through decay when they're not actively destroying it with their fiscal mismanagement, the type of place where people cant sit on their own stoops without fear of the crime rampant in Democrat-run cities, where we grow and build the things the laptop class depend upon while they craft their posts decrying us -- I have a feeling that the Claremont guys could be persuaded of the virtue in that. Could they be persuaded to shut off the part of their brain that turns everything into a signal in the culture war, to enjoy it for the thing itself, not ideas about the thing? I'm not so sure, though I suppose I'd be more hopeful if I thought that they could.

Expand full comment
Farmer Jones's avatar

Hey, good stuff buddy

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts