The problem with conservative art philosophy

Conservative art philosophy tends to believe that if something is, as R.V Young put it in Modern Age, "exciting and appealing it is probably morally dubious," as tasty food is often fattening and full of things not good for you, like cholesterol.

But there is good and bad kinds of fat. The metaphysical mistake here was in conservatives and traditionalists believing that the beautiful, true, and the good are ultimately non-material and spiritual, as was their God, which led to the bloodless morals and aesthetics of conservative art.

This was not entirely successful because excitement and emotional appeal break through in traditional art---few people can live as if in monasteries or nunneries. (Interesting that Islam is even stricter in trying to keep human attributes out of art.)

But we don't have to go as far as as radical Nietzsche and his postmodern followers did in rejecting God, truth and goodness, but we do have to understand that real Godhood is attained through material and supermaterial evolution.

We don't need to reject or lose the bloodless God, which was the preliminary, symbolic, Inward Path expression or experience of the real Godhood reached through the Outward Path of material and supermaterial evolution. This is the Twofold Path of theological materialism.

It was Plato who brought this bloodlessness into Western philosophy, much as Buddha and Christ did. But this metaphysics can to be turned right side up again: spiritualism is the illusion, not materialism.

Burke and Kirk's "moral imagination" needs to be grounded in the real Godhood reached through material and supermaterial evolution.  I would guess that Shakespeare, or say, the Romantic artists, might agree, at least on some instinctive level.