I feel like there used to be more photographs and photo projects on the “working class” , hard workers and self sufficient stuff. I’m thinking about ranchers and small businesses with these examples.

I think the “problem” to consider is that the progressive art often seems to point out problems, and sometimes though problems need to be pointed out. Likewise when progressive art points out success stories, it tends to focus on marginalized and less fortunate people overcoming staggering odds. Those stories are worth sharing too.

It’s a harder “pitch” though, both in the industry or even your audience’s attention, to say “let’s uplift people who are doing what they’re supposed to in a standard way and are following the established rules”. I know it’s not that simple. But that’s likely how it’ll be viewed.

People gravitate toward beautiful or shocking things. And while admirable, as a conservative myself, I’m not sure that conservative art would be seen as shocking. Beautiful yes, but revolutionary? No. Isn’t the point of conservatism to sorta be a bit less revolutionary and focus on small incremental improvements upon the established order?

With that in mind, I think progressive art, no matter if it’s angry or cliche or annoying or thoughtful, it’s got a natural advantage in the attempt to gain attention.

And maybe that’s a type of self-censorship from conservatives. Maybe we think no one wants to see non-revolutionary focuses? Maybe we don’t think we should highlight stuff that isn’t broken or exceptional?

Idk, good article though and an important question.