I don’t think that would overlap.

Jeff Koons beats them all by self-consciously mass-producing kitsch.

Fact is, the modern art market these days is super self-conscious status marking. It reminds me of christian relics in the Middle Ages but they had to perform miracles. Maybe the miracles today are the prices.

Maybe not, but there is art produced by leftists and rightists and my point was that there is an inversely proportional relationship between beauty and the degree of permeation a work has of leftist principles. My thesis here is that leftism is inherently opposed to art in its essence. It’s an a priori argument based on the essences of leftist and rightist worldviews as I perceive them, so individual examples would need to be thought about and explored. The idea, though, is that since the right upholds what is beautiful and differentiated and ordered in principle and the left represents the dissolution of those traditional values and modes of thought in principle, the left is therefore inherently anathema to art as such. Further, the left has artificiality built into it, which might explain the ascendancy of irony and kitsch in the realm of modern culture.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Were Gaugin or Van Gogh left? Or what about Rimbaud?

Hitler and Goebbels would have thought so but they were socialists. They liked Monet, I think. Paul Klee was included in the Entartatete Kunst shows. So was Picasso, who today maybe has the all-time highest sales at auction of $3.2 billion.

Is there even such a thing as left vs. right art? The communists rejected modernism too and eventually only sponsored “Social Realism.” Lenin, who hung out in Zurich near the Dadaists at their Cabaret Voltaire never trusted or commissioned modernists.

Chaos (The Creation), 1841, Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky in particular sticks in my mind as an inspiring piece.