Comedy & Conservatism

–Knock knock.

–Who’s there?

–A smaller government, a vigorous military presence abroad, and traditional values.

Get it?  According to Frank Rich, no one does.  Conservatism just isn’t funny.  In a terrific essay last week in New York Magazine, Rich explores the tortured relationship between conservatism and comedy.

Rich wonders why there are no big conservative comedians out there, no flipside to the Jon Stewarts and Stephen Colberts.  He mentions a couple of contenders, such as Dennis Miller and even South Park.  But they are either not very funny or not very conservative.  And, as Rich points out, it seems like there would be plenty of funding for a vigorous conservative comedy effort.  But the few that have been made, such as the lamentable ½ Hour News Hour, are only embarrassing for us all.

Rich doesn’t make the case, but it seems as if conservatism, as a rule, should have the upper hand when it comes to laffs.  After all, as Hannah Arendt argued long ago, conservatives in general have the easier job in cultural polemics.  They can joke about each new innovation.  They can skewer new trends and rely on long-standing traditions to pillory liberal excesses.

But, as Rich points out, they don’t.  Why not?  Why aren’t conservatives funny?

Rich argues that too many conservative comedians are conservatives first and comedians second.  After all, “liberal” jokesters such as Jon Stewart don’t hesitate to joke about liberal heroes.  Stewart puts the jokes first and the politics second.

More Preachy than Funny

More Preachy than Funny

When liberals forget this simple rule, they are just as unfunny as conservatives.  Remember Leslie Knope’s (Amy Poehler’s) stilted attempt at sex-education humor?  It just wasn’t funny.

This rule applies outside of comedy, of course.  Some conservative intellectuals embrace the paintings of the late Andrew Wyeth, for example, as “conservative” masterpieces.  Consider the vast difference, though, between Wyeth’s brand of painting and the conservatism-on-his-sleeve style of Jon McNaughton.

As Rich notes about comedy, art of any sort seems to suffer when pundits put ideology first and art second.

Wyeth's "Christina's World" (1948).  Is this good art?  Or just good "conservative" art?

Wyeth’s “Christina’s World” (1948). Is this good art? Or just good “conservative” art?

 

 

 

 

Jon McNaughton's "The Forgotten Man." Politics first, art second.

Jon McNaughton’s “The Forgotten Man”

Cheap Art for Cheap Conservatives

What do American conservatives hang on their walls?  Fr. Dwight Longenecker argues that too many of them fall for the sentimental hypocrisy of Thomas Kinkade.  Instead, they ought to recognize the sincerity of painters such as Andrew Wyeth.

Speaking in broad brush strokes, the American art scene seems a dangerous place for conservative intellectuals.  Take your pick: urinals on walls, celebrity soup cans masquerading as cutting-edge, a urine-soaked Jesus…what passes for “art” these days often drives conservatives bonkers.

But that is not the grim totality of today’s art scene.  Beyond the Tea-Party politicism of painters such as Jon McNaughton, conservatives can look to a broad array of recognizably conservative themes and artists in recent memory.

Jon McNaughton's "The Forgotten Man"

Jon McNaughton’s “The Forgotten Man”

But beware, warns Fr. Longenecker.  It would be too easy for conservatives to embrace the hypocritical Christianity and on-his-sleeve sentimentality of fakers such as Thomas Kinkade.  Kinkade made his millions peddling paintings of an imagined America, a happy hobbit-land of glowing farmhouses and quaint clustered villages.  Such false nostalgia, Longenecker insists, is a mere distraction from the real themes of thinking conservatism.

Image Source: The Imaginative Conservative

Image Source: The Imaginative Conservative

Better to embrace the harder truths of a painter such as Andrew Wyeth, Longenecker argues.  Wyeth’s America is not as chipper as Kinkade’s, but it has a deeper sensibility.

Image Source: The Imaginative Conservative

Image Source: The Imaginative Conservative

As Longenecker concludes,

If Kinkade illustrates the worst aspects of American conservatism–a sickening sentimentality, shallow prosperity gospel Christianity and ruthless Walmart marketing, Wyeth illustrates an authentic conservatism–rooted in deep personal emotion, an understated faith in goodness, beauty and truth, a concern for value instead of money and a disregard for marketing.

 

Artsy-Fartsy Tea Partsy?

What does Fundamentalist America hang on its walls?  If America’s Left has its Guernicas and its Imagines, what art can those on the Right embrace?

Perhaps the nerdy could dust off a Marinetti or simply adopt almost anything that smacks of Christian heritage.  Middlebrow folks could always seek out an appropriate Thomas Kincade.

Marinetti, from “Words in Freedom”

These days, those looking for a more in-your-face political print to hang above their couches can snap up a Jon McNaughton print.  As reviewed today for Religion & Politics by Duke’s David Morgan, McNaughton’s work offers today’s conservative activists an unabashedly explicit political and cultural message.

In 2010’s “The Forgotten Man,” McNaugton offers what looks like an attack ad.  In 2011’s “Wake Up America!” that forgotten man works his way to freedom by leading a Tea-Party-like protest against a sinister President Obama.

McNaughton’s The Forgotten Man

McNaughton’s Wake Up America!

According to the Religion & Politics piece, this ardent partisanship led McNaughton’s alma mater Brigham Young University to cease selling one of McNaughton’s paintings.  Yet McNaughton has remained a huge seller.  And Morgan finds McNaughton’s work to be more than just a shill.  Morgan compares McNaughton’s frank preachiness to the contemporary interests of artists such as Michaelango and Giotto.  And, Morgan concludes,

It is easy for art critics to scowl at McNaughton’s pictures as preachy, partisan, and cheesy. Their solemnity and their illustrational literalism tempt many observers to dismiss them as propaganda or kitsch. And Wake Up America! certainly seems more political cheerleading than artistic vision. But simply scorning the work misses the opportunity to understand something powerful moving through many religious sub-cultures in the United States today. These groups do not distinguish between religion and politics the way that many commentators and cultural analysts would prefer. For McNaughton and his admirers, as well as many more, there is nothing at all absurd about Jesus holding the Constitution as a sacred artifact, as evidence of his authorial intent.”

Marcel Duchamp, “The Fountain,” 1917

Morgan doesn’t make this connection, and perhaps it doesn’t hold water, but McNaughton’s popularity in Fundamentalist America may result from an even deeper cultural divide.  Since at least Marcel Duchamp’s 1917 “The Fountain,” high art in the Western Tradition has prided itself on NOT saying what it seems to be saying.  Some of McNaughton’s popularity may come from simple resentment against a self-appointed cultural elite who look down their noses at any Art that does not somehow befuddle the uninitiated.  American art museums have long embraced the pop art of Warhol’s Soup Cans and the ironic self-referentialism of Lichtenstein’s comic-bookism.  Sworls of color and abstruse “performance pieces” have made art museums cold, forbidding, meaningless fortresses to all those who stand outside their elusive mysteries.

It makes a certain amount of sense that Fundamentalist America would celebrate Art that says what it means.  After all, in Fundamentalist America, that is what the Bible and the Constitution have always done.