A Digression into Aesthetics

Respectable, Transgressive, Dystrophic, and Romantic Realism

Long-time readers will know that I earn my living as a creative — specifically I design tabletop role-playing games under the brand Autarch and I write graphic novels under the brand Ascendant Comics. This curious vocation has led my friend

Gary Brode

to call me “the most under-employed man in the world.” I’d prefer to call it “Going Galt” except I don’t have a secret valley with next-gen technology or any money.

In any case, three weeks ago I announced a new crowdfunding campaign from Autarch and Ascendant Comics: Ascendant Star-Spangled Squadron Volume II. Ascendant: Star-Spangled Squadron launches on July 18, 2024 as part of Backerkit's comic crowdfunding campaign Comictopia.

Earlier this week, I presented the cover of Ascendant: Star-Spangled Squadron Vol II to my worshipful adoring somewhat attentive fans. I also revealed the cover of the new Monstrous Manual for Adventurer Conqueror King System II.

Both of these covers feature beautiful and scantily-clad women. There’s no nudity, but there’s definitely gorgeous sexuality on display. Now, I traditionally take flak from the Left when I release anything. (As one friend said, “you’re ALWAYS over the target.) But lately I’ve gotten some flak from the Right, too, largely on the grounds of being overly prurient.

Well, fair enough. That may well be! But the recent anti-artcraft fire inspired me to talk about my philosophy of aesthetics. Hence, this essay. It’s not going to be an exhaustive overview of every aspect of aesthetics nor even normative theory of art. Rather I want to discuss the sort of art that matters for my work, which falls into the genre of realistic art rather than, e.g. abstract expressionism, cubism, dadaism, impressionism, installation art, and so on, and I want to explain why I believe what I make is good.

The Aesthetic of Respectable Realism

From the late 19th century well into the 20th century, the Right held to what I call the aesthetic of respectable realism. This style sought to present the world in a manner that, while realistic enough to avoid pure idealism, was supportive of essentially Christian and Civic American values.

The aesthetic of respectable realism was eventually codified by the entertainment industry into a set of self-regulating codes. In 1934, the Motion Picture Production Code, also known as the Hayes Code, was established by the Motion Picture Association to self-regulate cinema. In 1954, the Comics Code was established by the Comics Magazine Association of America to do the same for comics. The Hays Code was replaced in 1968, while the Comics Code was amended in 1971. The peak of respectable realism was thus the wholesome 1950s in which so many Baby Boomers grew up.

Here is the Hays Code’s list of censored topics, those which no film should include:

• Pointed profanity—by either title or lip—this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd, and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;

• Any licentious or suggestive nudity—in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;

• The illegal traffic in drugs;

• Any inference of sex perversion;

• White slavery;

• Miscegenation;

• Sex hygiene and venereal diseases;

• Scenes of actual childbirth—in fact or in silhouette;

• Children's sex organs;

• Ridicule of the clergy; and

• Willful offense to any nation, race or creed.

And here is the Hays Code’s list of sensitive topics, which should only be included if “special care” is taken to avoid vulgarity and suggestiveness:

• The use of the Flag;

• International Relations;

• Religion and religious ceremonies;

• Arson;

• The use of firearms;

• Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, et cetera (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron);

• Brutality and possible gruesomeness;

• Technique of committing murder by whatever method;

• Methods of smuggling;

• Third-Degree methods;

• Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishment for crime;

• Sympathy for criminals;

• Attitude toward public characters and institutions;

• Sedition;

• Apparent cruelty to children and animals;

• Branding of people or animals;

• The sale of women, or of a woman selling her virtue;

• Rape or attempted rape;

• First-night scenes;

• Man and woman in bed together;

• Deliberate seduction of girls;

• The institution of marriage;

• Surgical operations;

• The use of drugs;

• Titles or scenes having to do with law enforcement or law-enforcing officers;

• Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy".

Meanwhile, here are the rules applied by the Comic Code to all comics:

• Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.

• Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, the gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.

• Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.

• Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.

• All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.

• No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.

• All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.

• Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.

• In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.

• If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.

• Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.

• Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.

• Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.

• Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.

• Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

• Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.

• Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes, as well as sexual abnormalities, are unacceptable.

• Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.

• Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.

Even after the Codes were gone, it took many decades for the aesthetic of respectable realism to fall out of fashion. For instance, 1977’s Star Wars only broke 3 of the Hays Code guidelines and 3 of the Comics Code guidelines, but by 2011’s Game of Thrones broke 24 of the Hays Code guidelines and every Comics Code guideline.

Reading these codes as a creator in the 21st century, I am struck by the following:

1. I don’t follow them in my own work. Star-Spangled Squadron violates 3 of the “Don’t” and 6 of the “Be Careful” guidelines of the Hays Code. It violates 12 of the Comics Code guidelines. My work would be considered less respectable than Star Wars but more than Game of Thrones.

2. The codes are clearly the work of a high-trust society that had a shared belief in the righteousness of Christian morality and the respectability of its own institutions. There is no need to explain why things should be censored, because it’s understood. That society no longer exists.

3. Most of the guidelines are now, not just ignored, but actively subverted. For instance, what the code writers would have called “sexual perversion,” “illicit sex relations,” and “sexual abnormalities” are all actively promoted in modern media.

4. Some of the guidelines have recently begun to be enforced again - albeit in a new and pernicious way (more on this later).

It is impossible to imagine a more wholesome example of respectable realism than this cover of Action Comics #144, featuring Superman selflessly rescuing a respectably-dressed woman, a cute dog, and an adorable toddler from a flood.

However, respectable realism was not just limited to comics and movies. It also dominated advertising, art, television, and every other medium. Norman Rockwell is the most famous “respectable realist” painter, Charles M. Schulz of Peanuts the most famous cartoonist.

Within the framework of respectable realism,

• Good art is civic, decent, dignified, modest, tasteful, and/or upright; while

• Bad art is immodest, obscene, profane, prurient, unseemly, vulgar, and/or vicious.

The Aesthetic of Transgressive Realism

If the 20th century aesthetic of the Right was respectable realism, the 20th century aesthetic of the Left was what I have deemed transgressive realism. Transgressive realism eschewed traditional notes of modesty and uprightness. Anything was permissible because “it’s art, man.”

Transgressive realism became a force in the late 19th century, as e.g. the writings of Oscar Wilde, such as The Picture of Dorian Grey, challenged Victorian moral values and the paintings of Édouard Manet scandalized society with their nudity.¹

Among more recent luminaries of transgressive realism are Vladimir Nabokov (author of 1955’s Lolita); John Waters (filmmaker of 1972’s Pink Flamingos); Pier Paolo Pasolini (director of 1975’s 120 Days of Sodom); and Larry Clark (filmmaker of 1995’s Kids).

Within my own niche of tabletop games, we had 1976’s Eldritch Wizardry (with a naked woman shackled to a sacrificial altar) and 1977’s Monster Manual (with nude succubae, demons, and devils) as examples of transgressiveness.

Within the framework of transgressive realism,

• Good art is campy, challenging, countercultural, groundbreaking, mature, noncomformist, and subversive; while

• Bad art is hidebound, kitsch, unoriginal, and vanilla - that is to, respectable!

During the Left’s “Long March through the Institutions” in the 1960s and 1970s, respectable realism everywhere retreated while transgressive realism everywhere advanced. After a temporary blowback fueled by the Moral Majority in the 1980s, transgressive realism regained its strength in the 1990s.

By the late 1990s to the early 2010s there was very little modesty or respectability to be found in U.S. pop culture at all. This was the era of the Spice Girls, of fetish-fueled Matrix fashion, of Britney Spears, of Victoria Secret runway shows, of Calvin Klein underwear ads in Times Square - and also of widespread popularization of porn, especially in its most extreme forms.

It was a golden age of licentiousness and libertinism…

The Aesthetic of Dystrophic Realism

Then, in the 2010s, something unexpected happened: A movement superficially similar to the aesthetic of respectability began to emerge among the Left. This movement I have dubbed dystrophic realism and it has become the dominant aesthetic of much of contemporary pop culture.

Now, respectable realism, though a secular aesthetic, was grounded on Christian values. For instance, its rejection of depictions of sex, nudity, seduction, and so on were founded on the Christian belief that fornication and lust are mortal sins.

Transgressive realism was grounded on the rejection of Christian values, but it did not have any values of its own to promote. It offered transgression for transgression’s sake. In the typology of evil, it was merely Luciferian rebellion - the least sort of evil.

Dystrophic realism, however, does have its own values, grounded in its own religion of woke progressivism. It is Ahrimanic in typology; it has every bit as many rules as the old aesthetic of respectable realism, and they are every bit as binding. No rebellion is permitted whatsoever on fear of cancellation.

The tenets of dystrophic realism have never been explicitly eluded (not surprising, since I just made it up 10 minutes ago), but if I were to draft a Dystrophic Code similar to the old Comics Code, it would be something like the following:

• Minorities (defined to include women, LGBTQ+ persons, members of racial and ethnic groups other than white, and devotees of religions other than Christianity), shall not be presented in such a way as to create disrespect, distrust, or hatred towards them.

• Straight, white, and/or Christian men as such shall not be presented in a manner that promotes distrust of the forces of feminism and intersectionality, nor in a manner that inspires other to re-institute patriarchal, Christian, or white oppression.

• Differently-abled persons shall not presented in such a way as to create ableist tendencies by, e.g. suggesting that they are less capable or competent than abled persons.

• Large-sized persons shall not be presented in such a way as to cause fat-shaming or suggest they are less attractive or healthy than persons of lesser body mass.

• Cisgendered women shall not be presented in a manner traditionally attractive to men in order to eliminate the oppressive male gaze of patriarchal oppression and to avoid shaming the differently attractive. Transwomen, however, can be presented in a manner traditionally attractive to men in order to de-normalize cisgender attraction.

• Profanity, obscenity, smut, and vulgarity can be used unless they have undesirable meanings about minorities, and are not being used by said minorities.

• Depictions of happy heteronormative sexual relations between married people of the same race should be avoided. However, depictions of unhappy heteronormative sexual relations are encouraged, as are happy heteronormative relationships between members of different races, and happy homosexual relationships.

• Rape cannot be depicted except if the perpetrator is a straight white male. Consensual nonconsensual sex can be portrayed provided it is made clear that the non-consent was consensual.

• White slavery cannot be depicted but black slavery can be depicted in order to demonstrate its cruelty and oppression.

• Ridicule of the clergy is permitted if the clergy is Christian, but not if it is of another religion.

• Willful offense to any nation, race or creed is forbidden unless it is an Anglo-American or European nation, race, or creed.

Apply this as a checklist to everything you see in mainstream advertising, comics, movies, books, and television today, and you’ll see how dominant dystrophic realism really is. It is far more restrictive than the old codes ever were, and more racist and sexist. All one has to do is reverse the code above and compare it to the old codes to see that.

Now, dystrophic means “impaired in nourishment,” which might seem an odd choice of name for this aesthetic. However, those of you familiar with my TEDx talk, or with my other writing on nutrition vs taste, will be aware that I believe that content can be judged objectively for its nutritious value. By this standard, dystrophic art is more than simply not nutritious; it is anti-nutritious. In Nietzschean terms, dystrophic realism is the apex of slave morality and ressentiment. In Christian terms, dystrophic realism is the utter rejection of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. Whether one is a Vitalist or Christian, it is an aesthetic of poison.

Defenders of dystrophic realism would, of course, disagree. They would call it representative realism and would assert that it is representing the world as it really is, with all its vibrant diversity of differently-abled body positive queer individuals; to the extent it exaggerates certain aspects of reality, it does so in order to be an agent of change and social progress. But to accept this evaluation is to accept their entire worldview, which I do not.

Here are some examples of advertising billboards and videogame art from the eras before and after dystrophic realism.

Within the framework of dystrophic realism,

• Good art is anti-oppressive, body positive, decolonizing, progressive, and representative; while

• Bad art is ableist, beauty privileging, colonizing, fascist, fat-shaming, heteronormative, patriarchal, and/or racist.

The Aesthetic of Romantic Realism

Just as respectable realism spawned the aesthetic of transgressive realism, today the aesthetic of dystrophic realism is spawning its own reaction. That reaction, more or less, can be categorized into two schools of aesthetics.

The first school is neo-respectable realism. The members of this school, largely drawn from Christian conservative groups, have aligned around aesthetics such as “cottagecore” and “trad wife” that harken back to the 1950s and beyond. These depict e.g. happily married healthy-looking straight men and women engaging in pro-social lifestyles, raising children, and so on.

Neo-respectable realism varies from its 20th century counterpart largely in its treatment of our civic institutions. Since right-wingers have largely lost their respect for civic institutions, it no longer emphasizes portraying police, politicians, and religious leaders in a positive light. Indeed, it often will outright mock our institutions! From the point of view of adherents to dystrophic realism, neo-respectable realism is quite transgressive.

I am not, however, an adherent to neo-respectable realism. I consider myself an advocate of the rival aesthetic of romantic realism. Unlike the other terms in this essay, the term romantic realism has a long history in the philosophy of art, seen in works such as Ruth M. Stauffer’s Joseph Conrad: His Romantic Realism and P.F Sheeran’s book The Novels of Liam O’Flaherty: A Study in Romantic Realism. The 1961 book American Art of Our Century, John I. H. Baur described it as “a form of realism modified to express a romantic attitude or meaning.” (Romantic here is used in the old, true sense of the word, not its contemporary meaning of trashy fiction for women.)

I first encountered the term romantic realism in the book The Romantic Manifesto, by Ayn Rand. This book has remained influential on me even as I have repudiated Rand in some other areas. Rand wrote that “the method of romantic realism is to make life more beautiful and interesting than it actually is, yet give it all the reality, and even a more convincing reality than that of our everyday existence.” Romantic realism depicts life “as it could be and should be.”

Romantic realism has an uneasy relationship with respectable realism, however. With regard to depictions of the human form, romantic realism holds that the human form is, can be, and should be beautiful; and that human beings can, do, and should delight in depictions of our kind that display beauty and excellence in form and function. Norman Rockwell, however, does not ever paint the Swedish women’s beach volleyball team in all their half-naked sweaty glory, because it would be a tad bit lewd.

With regard to sexuality, romantic realism is comfortable with presenting human sexuality in ways that are very uncomfortable for the respectable realist. For instance, The Fountainhead has a famous (and apparently quite popular) rape scene, while Atlas Shrugged is filled with adulterous sex. In comic books and RPGs, romantic realism often features sexually attractive people (of either sex) wearing revealing clothes without making them an object of guilt or shame.

What romantic realism does not do, however, is feature unattractive people wearing revealing clothes. Ayn Rand wrote of the degraded sense of life that an artist conveyed when he painted a beautiful woman — then added an oozing cold sore on her lip. For the romantic realist, that painting was an obscenity.

Thus, what separates romantic realism from transgressive realism and dystrophic realism is that romantic realism rejects the degradation of natural human form and function, whether that be in the name of liberation from tradition (as in Pink Flamingos) or in opposition to heteronormativity or beauty (as in the Calvin Klein ad).

Within the framework of romantic realism,

• Good art is awe-inspiring, alluring, beautiful, heroic, majestic, sensual, and sublime; while

• Bad art is cynical, deconstructive, demoralizing, dispiriting, and/or ugly.

If respectable realism is inspired by the Christian tradition of the West, romantic realism is inspired by the Hellenistic tradition.

Rather than illustrate romantic realism with unrelated works, I will instead illustrate it with my own writing and with art I have purposefully commissioned to depict my RPGs and graphic novels. In selecting these, I have purposefully selected those which are outside the boundaries of respectable realism, dystrophic realism, or both.

Here is a piece of lore I wrote for the setting of the Adventurer Conqueror King System II:

The most fell all of the warriors of Sebek was Suhgurim, the Ruinguard, who wielded the terrible Scourge of Law, forged by the hand of Bel himself… Suhgurim was the half-brother of Valerian, high king of the Empyreans, and no man could say who was the greater in valor. It came to pass that on the Fields of Morgot, the tide of battle carried Suhgurim to the line where Valerian fought, and the two came face to face. The battlefield became around them calm as the center of the storm.

And Valerian said, “Brother, the time has come for us to fight, to either slay or be slain. But let us pledge to one another by our gods, that if Ammonar vouchsafes me and I take your life, I shall not treat your body in an unseemly fashion, but give up your body to the Zaharans to honor. And you do likewise should you slay me.”

But Suhgurim said, “Brother, there can be no covenants between us, for there is only hate through and through. Put forth your strength, and let us see who is the greater man of war.”

At this, Valerian unsheathed his fiery blade, and sprang on Suhgurim like the soaring eagle which swoops down from the clouds. The fire of Bellësar melted his brother’s helm and blackened his flesh. But life had not yet fled the Ruinguard, and Suhgurim swung the Scourge and it found Valerian’s throat at the soft point between his cuirass and his helmet. The king’s neck rained blood and the marrow of his spine leaked onto the earth.

So both brothers fell, and a stillness came on the battlefield and even the beastmen ceased their mad howls. And men came, and took away the bodies of their champions, and those who were there said that the face of Valerian was of proud countenance even in death, but the face of Suhgurim was a ruin terrible to behold.

And here is a painting by my friend Michael Syrigos, commissioned for Adventurer Conqueror King System II to illustrate that scene:

Here is a painting for the ACKS II Monstrous Manual, featuring a scantily-clad and lusty gorgon and a brave hero there to slay her:

Here is another painting by Michael Syrigos, showing the villainous Incarnation of Terror from The Secrets of the Nethercity with his beautiful enslaved thrall:

Here is a graphic novel illustration from ACKS II by Luciano Regazzoni showing a bladedancer of Ianna (goddess of love and war) opposing a priestess of Nasga (goddess of beauty and pain):

Next up is art from my graphic novel Ascendant: Star-Spangled Squadron, written by me and illustrated by Mel Joy San Juan. This page depicts the moment when the teleporting hero Warp encounters the super-villain team Exodus:

These next two pages illustrate the battle between the hero Aurora (a wannabe model who dreamed of being a star and is now able to generate light and heat) and the villain Free Radical (an anti-nuclear activist who developed nuclear powers after being exposed to a meltdown and is now a self-hating nuclear-powered anti-nuclear activist):

The next two pages depict a battle between Stiletto (a world-weary vigilante with unbreakable stiletto nails who exudes lust-inducing pheromones) and Helen Killer (the world’s deadliest blind-deaf-mute assassin). Helen Killer, and Exodus in general, are Nietzscheans, while Stiletto is a hedonistic cynic:

These next two images shows what happens when Stiletto attempts to “play rough” with the world’s most powerful man, American Eagle — a straight white veteran married Christian father of two, who works as a firefighter in Freedom, Nebraska. There’s no “plot twist” to American Eagle - he’s genuinely good and heroic.

And this last page shows how I contrast the life choices of the two:

Although the art is by three different artists, and my work is in two different genres, I think the aesthetic I pursue should be clear enough, as is the philosophy behind it. (And if you didn’t get it, feel free to ask in the comments.)

The Future of Aesthetics

The table below (artfully designed with the world’s greatest fonts by yours truly²), summarizes the four aesthetics. Note that I’ve placed neo-respectable realism in with its original counterpart.

Which aesthetic should we, creators on the Right, pursue? Obviously we are all united in our disgust with and opposition to Dystrophic Realism. The Vitalist wing of the Dissident Right has already aligned itself around Romantic Realism, while the Christian wing has, mostly, aligned itself around Neo-Respectable Realism.

Though I do not consider myself a Vitalist (albeit perhaps Vitalist adjacent), I personally believe that romantic realism, rather than respectable realism, is the aesthetic we need for our movement and moment. I’m going to take for granted that you (the reader) share a general anti-woke or right-wing world view and lay out my case from that point of view.

The world of respectable realism - a world of trusted civic institutions, happy marriages, faithful congregations devoted to God - was wonderful. Was. It is gone. And in 2024, the idea that we’re going to bring it back anytime soon is more fantastical than anything in my games or comics.

The only way to get to that better world is by going through the current one, and the way forward through the dark times ahead isn’t going to be for the faint of heart. It will require heroes of the sort who arose during the Bronze Age Collapse and the Dark Ages. Those heroes were not respectable men; but they were hard men, men who crushed their enemies, saw them driven before them, and enjoyed the lamentations of their women. If we are to have any hope for the future, it must come from reaching young men and inspiring them to rise to similar challenges in the days ahead.

Young men are by nature rebellious, and the current dystrophic realism is facing their rebellion. It’s playing out online in areas such as #GamerGate and #ComicsGate and more. Properly motivated, young men could be and should be the most powerful bloc that our movement could mobilize. But if their reward for action is to go from being told “the male gaze is problematic because it’s oppressive” to “the male gaze is problematic because it’s lustful” why bother?

Our men, especially our young men, have been demasculinized and problematized. They have been taught to reject their own healthy appetites for beauty, competition, excellence, and glory. They have been, not oversexualized, but desexualized. These are interlocking problems. You cannot restore one without the other.

For the fuel that makes young men willing to risk death in the face of an all-powerful horde of enemies like this:

Is the promise of this:

And this:

Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.

1. Manet later abandoned realism for impressionism, of course; and to call the Left’s aesthetic transgressive “realism” is, in fact, to understate its transgressive nature; for the transgression extend into a rejection of realism itself - Jackson Pollack being an example. But for my purposes I am concerned primarily with works of realism, because (despite the pretensions of elite artists), realism of some sort is and has always been what the masses prefer; pop culture is varieties of realism.

2. If you don’t get why using Comic Sans and Papyrus in an essay on aesthetics is hilarious, there’s no hope for you.