It's not that Republicans don't like art...

Okay.  So some limited data to make an intuitive claim, but I'm going to go for it.  I think the Republican Party, as institution, mindset, and abstract concept, is not so much against art as against art that can't be quantified or that is perceived as going against right wing values. 

First, let me preface this with a slideshow of specifics I have in mind

• The NEA 4, how because 3 of the 4 artists were queer and dealt with that in their performance art, the Republicans battled to revoke and stop the already awarded funding and how this was a battle over culture, not artistic merits.
• This year's Republican National Convention performance art monologue with a chair by Charlton Heston (I mean Clint Eastwood, but hearing this I keep imagining Charlton Heston in a mash up of NRA conventions and the moment in the Planet of the Apes where you realize "F**k, this is actually our world")
• The use of spectacle and artistic tools by evangelists.
• Bil O'Reilly, or maybe Rush Limbaugh or someone else of that genre (Republican "news" performance art) interviewing/bragging about a painter.  The specific painter's work depicts Obama as either trampling the constitution while others watch or being some other form of appocolpytic/anti-constitution/anti-christ.  Said pundit, and this is the part I can paraphrase most clearly, exclaimed "I have never had art speak to me like this did!"
• How many Republicans want(ed) to use Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" without realizing it is an anti-war song.
• Romney planning to eliminate nearly all arts funding if elected.

Okay.  That ended up as a longer list than I had planned on and I'm trying to get away from this blog being short essays and bring it back to the paragraph form, but well... we'll see what happens.   My thesis is this: the history of the Republican anti-art movement is caused by a) not understanding art OR b) not liking the perceived messages.

On Not Understanding Art

If the current Republican Presidential candidate can be seen as a representative of the party, if for no other reason than based on the fact that he is their candidate for the highest office in the nation, the Republican mind is run by the rules of business.  Specifically, profits-first-things-only-matter-if-directly-related-to-money-business.  In that world, how can you understand or appreciate art that is no blatant?  What is the need for art that captures an emotion, provides a feeling of shelter, or explores a beauty?  What is the need for art that challenges or shows hidden uglinesses? 

There has been much said about how art has been important since before the days of cave paintings to helping humans see/understand/explore/challenge/develop the world around them.  But to a mindset of bottom line and what is best now, what does that matter?

On Not Liking What is Understood

So when an art piece is understood, or at least certain things about it can be picked up on, chances are it will have a liberal leaning.  Chances are that leaning won't be appreciated by Republican policy makers.