Isaac Simpson goes NUCLEAR on the right wing art meme in this episode, in response to Spencer Klavan’s much-discussed American Mind piece about conservatives’ lack of taste.
I'm not really sure what there is to be confused about regarding "rw art". A huge segment of the population gets their entire sense of morality or normalcy from netflix shows and other entertainment (which is what people really mean when they talk about "art").
Public sentiment about gay marriage shifted like 80pts over 20 years largely through a media onslaught that promoted gays and gay lifestyles. That was not some completely organic shift. There was money behind that, and it wasn't just the market meeting demand, they were creating the demand.
It might be antithetical to the conservative temperament to fund things that don't have a direct financial return but rich conservatives should at least understand how the game works.
People act like there's a handful of left wing billionaires funding Hollywood. The deep state of Hollywood, and every other mainstream art institution, "normalized" gay shit first and foremost because it (they thought) it made a good story, and also because they were super gay and progressive themselves. Great art has always mostly been made degenerates, and that will never change. Watch Jerry Seinfeld's backstage video where he tells the joke about Glenn Miller band (https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/jerry-seinfelds-favorite-story-reveals-1-thing-successful-people-always-do.html). Artists are circus people. Chaos is in their blood.
There were no "left wing billionaires" behind every single mainstream art establishment's endless push leftward. Having right wing billionaires finance a overtly right wing versions of the left wing art establishment is not going to do "move the needle." These works have already existed, and they did nothing to stop the march to where we are today.
My point is we should focus on the art itself. Become great at art. Don't become great at asking for money for it.
it seems like you're mixing two things. one is the art, the other thing is promotion and distribution.
individual artists should, of course, just make the stuff they want to make but it's more an issue of scale and distribution. lots of people are doing interesting things, but where is the money to promote it and help it break out of the little scene? people are doing good things but I think we're fooling ourselves if we think the best stuff rises to the top. media landscape too noisy now--you have to brute force your way (money, marketing) at least part of the way.
money would ideally be going to marketing guys like you who can get stuff to a broader audience where I do think the ideas can move the needle. talk to normies and it's obvious they get most of their morality from entertainment.
no "plan" in mind. it's directional. I'd like to see people like Dan Baltic get even a fraction of the treatment a libtard author gets when she writes a book about the trauma of growing up as a child of immigrants at a mostly white private school. that's all. he should get an advance so he can write all day. he should get a lot of promotion. the movie adaptation of his book should get a nice budget and distribution. it's all DIY at this point which generates a cool energy but nearly impossible to really break out.
I'm all for the parallel economy dude. I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't cultivate talent.
My point is that creating a "RW art establishment" or even just pieces of mainstream RW art is not going to "move the needle" in the way that people assume it will.
But yes if it comes to growing talent and marketing it to the right audiences, of course I'm in 100%.
I would be surprised if only a few people got the hilarious Ken Burns bit. It’s a classic meme and something many were exposed to in school. Heck, every documentary on the decade after felt like a Ken Burns copycat.
I'm not really sure what there is to be confused about regarding "rw art". A huge segment of the population gets their entire sense of morality or normalcy from netflix shows and other entertainment (which is what people really mean when they talk about "art").
Public sentiment about gay marriage shifted like 80pts over 20 years largely through a media onslaught that promoted gays and gay lifestyles. That was not some completely organic shift. There was money behind that, and it wasn't just the market meeting demand, they were creating the demand.
It might be antithetical to the conservative temperament to fund things that don't have a direct financial return but rich conservatives should at least understand how the game works.
People act like there's a handful of left wing billionaires funding Hollywood. The deep state of Hollywood, and every other mainstream art institution, "normalized" gay shit first and foremost because it (they thought) it made a good story, and also because they were super gay and progressive themselves. Great art has always mostly been made degenerates, and that will never change. Watch Jerry Seinfeld's backstage video where he tells the joke about Glenn Miller band (https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/jerry-seinfelds-favorite-story-reveals-1-thing-successful-people-always-do.html). Artists are circus people. Chaos is in their blood.
There were no "left wing billionaires" behind every single mainstream art establishment's endless push leftward. Having right wing billionaires finance a overtly right wing versions of the left wing art establishment is not going to do "move the needle." These works have already existed, and they did nothing to stop the march to where we are today.
My point is we should focus on the art itself. Become great at art. Don't become great at asking for money for it.
it seems like you're mixing two things. one is the art, the other thing is promotion and distribution.
individual artists should, of course, just make the stuff they want to make but it's more an issue of scale and distribution. lots of people are doing interesting things, but where is the money to promote it and help it break out of the little scene? people are doing good things but I think we're fooling ourselves if we think the best stuff rises to the top. media landscape too noisy now--you have to brute force your way (money, marketing) at least part of the way.
money would ideally be going to marketing guys like you who can get stuff to a broader audience where I do think the ideas can move the needle. talk to normies and it's obvious they get most of their morality from entertainment.
Ok so let me ask you this: say that everything goes exactly as planned. What does the art establishment look like? What does Hollywood etc look like?
no "plan" in mind. it's directional. I'd like to see people like Dan Baltic get even a fraction of the treatment a libtard author gets when she writes a book about the trauma of growing up as a child of immigrants at a mostly white private school. that's all. he should get an advance so he can write all day. he should get a lot of promotion. the movie adaptation of his book should get a nice budget and distribution. it's all DIY at this point which generates a cool energy but nearly impossible to really break out.
I'm all for the parallel economy dude. I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't cultivate talent.
My point is that creating a "RW art establishment" or even just pieces of mainstream RW art is not going to "move the needle" in the way that people assume it will.
But yes if it comes to growing talent and marketing it to the right audiences, of course I'm in 100%.
When you say “win converts” what do you mean? Who is White Lotus converting? Did Michael Crichton convert anyone?
Bceause I'm a cool guy I hit like on this one when you said you checked twitter for likes to see if any cool people liked your poasts.
The crowd: “Give us more Isaac!”
Dudley: “Are you not entertained?”
I would be surprised if only a few people got the hilarious Ken Burns bit. It’s a classic meme and something many were exposed to in school. Heck, every documentary on the decade after felt like a Ken Burns copycat.