Margaret, Fred, and several others: I somewhat disagree with you about not wanting to create a conservative “artistic ghetto”, as it were. First of all, there’s always the need for those of similar minds to find places to work together and support each other. Admittedly, its scope should eventually grow beyond any core group of insiders (otherwise it’s serving no purpose), but you’ve got to start somewhere.
However, a more important point: Much of what’s happened to the arts today is because of the Left’s fully embracing the Stalinist dictum that the only legitimate purpose of art is to advance the interests of the Party. According to this dictum, all works of art that fail to propagandize their political interests are burgeois and should be suppressed. This dictum has almost totally taken over the visual arts world; if you go to any exhibition of contemporary painters or sculptures you are almost certain to be assaulted with 100% left-wing politics, presented in as strident and bratty a style as possible. It has also taken over much of the film and television world; the practicers of these arts today view the role of their art as being not to enlighten, but to indoctorinate. This is what explains things like “Piss Christ” and “Stop-Loss”.
The purpose of a conservative arts outfit should be not necessarily be to apply partisan tests to its participants, but to create works of art that do not seek to propagandize. I claim that, because today’s Leftism is so full of self-contradictions and lies, any artist who truly seeks to enlighten (and entertain!) the audience will usually wind up expressing conservative values as a matter of course. Remember, conservatism isn’t simply a political movement; it’s a perscription for arriving at a set of values for how to live a moral life.
