15
posted ago by SEE_THaTDooDD ago by SEE_THaTDooDD +16 / -1

The obvious response is that they're politically biased to the point where they'd sacrifice the story for the message. You see the same thing with Christian movies.

But we have plenty of inspired works that fulfill a political role i.e 1984, Brave new world, etc. Those stories have a clear message, but they are regarded as masterpieces and I'm inclined to agree.

So what is it about leftist propaganda that tends to make them absolutely terrible a good majority of the time?

Comments (21)
sorted by:
10
TallestSkil 10 points ago +11 / -1

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley both predicted a dystopia, but their visions differed. In Orwell’s, books were burned and grave injustices carried out to hide the truth from people–to keep them sedated and under control. But in Huxley’s, the world was the way it was because the people changed it to be that way. It was the future they chose, not the war they lost. Orwell’s dystopia is based on a great lie from an elite few–a tyranny that is enforced. Huxley’s is based on the sweeping ignorance of the many–an apathy that is accepted. If dystopia is to come, it will only be from one. Victory cannot be had by hiding truth. Truth always, eventually, comes out. It is important to understand the following: the concept of art itself has been redefined. Today, in a professional sense, “art” has come to mean, “The world around us, in all its imperfections, is beauty.” The implications of this claim are as follows:

  1. The real world is “beautiful” without exception; thus everything can be “art,” no matter how ugly it is.
  2. Since anything can be “art,” skill is not required to produce “art.”
  3. Because skill is not required for “art,” everyone can claim to be an artist.
  4. Since everyone can be an artist, even without skill, the “art” produced is naturally ugly.

Only with these axioms in place can we understand what has happened to artistic endeavor since the end of World War II. The quality of visual art (paintings, sculptures, etc.) has objectively diminished. Canned shit is treated like a masterpiece. The things which defined the value given to artwork have shifted from the visual beauty of the piece (and the effort applied to achieve said beauty) to the “meaning” of the art piece and the “backstory.” Since the dawn of human civilization, the value given to art had always been based on its visual beauty. The Greeks admired the human form and tried to represent it perfectly. The paintings and sculptures of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were extremely lifelike in quality, being pleasant to the eye. The ability to depict reality to minute detail was praised. This artwork had value even to those who had never experienced the culture in which the pieces were made. Hundreds–even thousands–of years later, people still appreciate this art, as it followed universal standards of beauty. Thus the pieces retained value, as they were based on objective visual aesthetics.

Now, however, “art” is based on the story–the “meaning”–that the piece has. A great example is Shoes on the Danube Bank. The sculpture itself is a collection of iron shoes stuck to the ground in front of a river. Each pair of shoes is claimed to represent a victim of the German NSDAP. It has been praised as a masterpiece. To someone who doesn’t know the context, it is merely a collection of iron shoes. The viewer has to know the story behind the piece to understand why–or if–it is valuable. If the message, meaning, or story is not known, the viewer will see it as no more than trash and a blight on the landscape. If the “art” is presented to an alienated individual–someone from a different culture or time–he will certainly not be able to spot the source of praise. Artistic standards have become nonexistent because meaning is praised more than beauty. That is why literal garbage, like an untouched canvas, is sold for millions of dollars. It gets even worse when the context is not shown. Without context, can you spot the difference between a pool of vomit and a “masterpiece” which looks the same? You can’t. Only when you are told that one of those two identical pools of vomit is “a thoughtful representation of human nature towards its own existence”–and specifically told which one is the art–will you be able to spot it. It holds no objective value; the value is given by the viewer.

8
SEE_THaTDooDD [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Ahhh. So it has less to do with leftism specifically and more to do with the total degradation of western thought and culture. Leftists have embraced this ideology and so it comes out in the art they produce.

5
gunteh 5 points ago +5 / -0

Not to mention that modern art has been hijacked by money laundering. It’s a way of pricing garbage art that has no value except to be the last way to transfer high amounts of money across borders more easily than simply transferring cash

2
bootsy_two_scoops 2 points ago +2 / -0

Those aren’t 2 separate things. You can’t have one without the other.

-3
free-will-of-choice -3 points ago +1 / -4

leftism

Consent to believe a suggested -ism is what causes the conflict between left and right. Within reality; free will of choice defines the balance between left and right. Ignoring reality by choice is what allows others to suggest right/left-ism, which causes the conflict of reason (truth versus) false; which those who made the suggestion a) use as division and b) maintain by suggesting contradictions to both sides within the conflict.

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well said. I would add that modern art tried to bring in “shock value”, which isn’t supposed to be the purpose of classical art. An example of shock art is ‘Petra’ by Marcell Walldorf, which also ties into the things you mentioned above.

1
Jmradioman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is this an appropriate contraposition? "The world around us is changing, and its up to us to make it change for the better"

  1. beauty is fleeting, and our perceptions must change with it
  2. Since beauty changes all the time, artist have to work hard to show that change
  3. Since art takes hard work, only the best among us can make good art
  4. Since some people work harder than others, art can be ugly or pretty.
-2
free-will-of-choice -2 points ago +1 / -3

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley both predicted a dystopia

Those who suggested the idols "George Orwell and Aldous Huxley" used them to set an agenda into motion. Mass consent to suggestion (ignorance) is what grows corruption within motion.

5
ack567 5 points ago +5 / -0

The problem is that people let themselves be governed by their emotions and passions, giving rise to what many call moral relativism. This is the fundamental lie the western world has embraced, and is the same lie illustrated in the Book of Genesis by what the serpent tells Eve: "Ye will be like God, able to tell good from evil." Well, here we are, still pretending we know better.

Beauty is an objective quality, not relative, because it stems from objective truth. Deep down we know what beauty and goodness are, however for many of us it is obscured by our own disordered passions. The more disordered we become, the greater the aversion we have to beauty, to the point we seek to destroy it.

For art to be beautiful, there are certain conditions that must be met (ex: symmetry and proportion) that follow the natural ordering of the cosmos. As some musical notes do not go well together (ie: dissonance), certain proportions and qualities in art do not go well together. As with music, dissonance in art is off-putting and ugly. In certain instances they can be used, provided there's resolution. For example, Baroque art typically features harsh contrasts in shading and light, but these harsh elements are used to draw the viewer to the light and what's beautiful.

Evil is an inversion to what is good and beautiful. Instead of harmony, dissonance is emphasized. Instead of resolution, there's deception (ex: deceptive cadence). Instead of proportion there is disproportion. There is no underlying truth to which the art points to, but rather bad art tends to define itself by its oppositional nature to good art. People who celebrate bad art typically do so because they have an aversion to what's beautiful.

Recommended reading: The Way of Beauty by David Clayton.

1
gunteh 1 point ago +1 / -0

If evil exists, then ugly art will continue to exist. Maybe the discussion should be on why the vast majority of modern art (as well as the auction houses, museums, art galleries, etc) are actively promoting and spreading garbage that runs counter to beauty.

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

Since you mentioned movies I'm going to focus on entertainment.

  1. Leftists have an emotionally-driven, illogical, and inconsistent mental model of the world because reality doesn't conform to their views. There are rules upon rules of "socially acceptable" behavior that they must conform to, and virtues they must signal. This causes them to self-censor their own thoughts, and kills creativity. Whatever fiction they create will match their mental model more than reality, so it doesn't feel entirely authentic to consumers. (right-wing individuals can also suffer from this, but you're not asking about them)

  2. For large productions run by a studio, the culture and companies have been so infiltrated by indoctrinated SJW types that they now self-select for the worst "talent" on the market, favoring woke points in access media and social media over actual quality content that would make money. That means they either focus on "diversity first" aka affirmative action picks of lowest-common denominator employees fitting their preferred color and gender palette, or they end up hiring the leftist "artist" from example 1.

Creativity can't thrive in a leftist-dominated authoritarian culture. A creative can step outside himself, authentically writing from the perspective of any individual or ideology, is not afraid to challenge commonly accepted truths, and ideally is not so myopic to not understand what the market wants. (although this often requires a symbiosis between creatives and money-hungry executives, which was destroyed by the #metoo movement)

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don’t get why the leftists have to monopolize emotion in art, conservative ideology in art (whether painting or movies) can be just as beautiful and emotional too.

3
Jmradioman 3 points ago +3 / -0

There are some excellent replies here. allow me to put it in a more simple way, so you can tell good art from bad art.

Good art has a story, and characters that follow that story. Someone, or something has to change.

Bad art sparks no change. The characters are perfect the way they are, so they require no motivation, no humanity, no emotion, ect.

Luke was a farmer turned rebel Han was alone then got a family Leigh was a prisoner then a leader, she was the voice of reason for the group

Rey stayed the same Po stayed the same Han solo started as a failure, and died a failure ect ect ect.

No change, no good art.

3
Kaarous 3 points ago +3 / -0

Because they serve Satan. The Accuser can never create, he can only distort and degrade. The same thing goes for his servants.

2
Spicy_Spine 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why is leftist art so bad? Because it’s trash. The end. No seriously, I know why. Because leftists don’t understand human nature and constantly seek to undermine it. They see beauty and they want to degrade and destroy it In order to “correct” the past or elevate the “misunderstood” or “overlooked”. Look into any early 20th century art and see the conflict between the artist’s vision and what the public wanted. The socialist/ anarchist art set wanted to create art that would appeal to the masses and so they broke art down into childlike, primitive scribbling. They thought this would even the playing field and speak to the poor. But the lower classes still preferred representational art. Only the wealthy and bored upper classes had time and money to contemplate and support this hideous art. The problem persists to this day. And take any of the leftist political issue- they try to manipulate and control humanity- they don’t factor in human nature. They assume the right people will plan everything accordingly and people will not have ambition, greed, sloth, etc. So they make shitty movies and art and smash you over the head with their propaganda. Part of this is arrogance, part of this is a block- headed inability to accept the fact that people don’t want to be lectured. But they think they are EDUCATING the masses and it’s their religious like duty to do so.

2
johnmic07 2 points ago +2 / -0

Atheists are terrible at art and music. They just are. They re really good at making porn tho.

2
CavePeasant 2 points ago +2 / -0

They think beauty is subjective, which is absolutely 100% is NOT.

Beauty is objective and even scientific.

2
ShadeCat 2 points ago +2 / -0

They try so hard to be special snowflakes that that fail at producing anything using the basic fundamentals of art. Thus leading it to be nothing but childish crap.

1
China4Biden 1 point ago +1 / -0

The majority of the time, the person inserting the propaganda into the story and the person who wrote the story are NOT the same person.

A lot of times, corporate executives will interfere in the creative process, censor stuff they don't like, and add in woke nonsense to appease the SJWs.

From my own observations, the less people there are involved in writing, the better the story. Once you bring in sensitivity consultants, MBA faggots, and other clowns, the story turns into shit.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +2 / -1

From the truth/false perspective...they use art to sell lies; others use art to express truth.

From the natural law perspective...ignorance requires suggestion; falling for suggestions tempts one to want more, and more corrupts the satisfaction that less once had.

1
MustafaJones 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lack of imagination, a desperation to “innovate” and a hatred for anything “established” because those things are don’t by bad white men. Put them together and you get utter tripe.