I notice that many artists are very idealistic. Is art inherently idealistic or is this phenomenon just another symptom of the idealism that is inherent to liberalism? It should be noted that the art industry largely depends on capitalist donors which means that capitalists have a large say in what type of art becomes successful, which then influences new artists as well.
But I still wonder if thought provoking art needs some level of idealism. Would love to read the thoughts of people who have more knowledge on the topic than me.
I’d say no. The velvet underground was sort of a response/reaction to the very idealistic west coast hippie movement at the time. They didn’t strike me as idealistic - Listen to Heroine, femme fatale, I found a Reason, even Take A Walk on The Wild Side for how chill it is, is still not idealistic.
The video game This War of Mine is another good example in my eyes. Or Disco Elysium for that matter.
edit: Being realistic also doesn’t have to mean that your art is depressing. Realistic is probably a bad antonym for “idealistic” in the sense you’re using it, maybe “grounded” or “observant” would be better. Art doesn’t have to be idealistic to be fantastical - Miyazakis movies are fantastical, but I would not call all of them idealistic - Off the top of my head Porch Rossi and Spirited Away.
Just because a movie ends on a hopeful note doesn’t mean it’s idealistic either. I’d say Children of Men is a good example of this: fantastical and a hopeful ending, but not idealistic.
To me these movies all relate to the world they create and treat it as a real place. On top of that the teams behind them are aware how their creations are shaped by the world they live in, and so make conscious decisions on what to do.
When it comes to paintings and sculptures I’m not the right one to ask, but the lazy answer would be to gesture towards portraits.
It would help if you would define what you mean by idealistic. Do you just mean “sad” or “no fantastical elements” or “only depicts real events” or?