PDA

View Full Version : Modern art was CIA weapon



Luke
5th November 2010, 15:15
Modern art was CIA 'weapon'
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html)


For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the "long leash" - arrangements similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender.

The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.

zenith
5th November 2010, 17:38
Not sure about this one.
Perhaps the CIA hadn't heard about the 'Russian avant-garde'
If memory serves me correctly, it was seeing the early abstracts
by the Russians that inspired many of the American artists.

Like 'Black Square' by Malevich (1913)

2788

Ammit
5th November 2010, 17:49
Is it just my eyes or is this picture darker lower down. Maybe its just where its an internet pic....?

Luke
5th November 2010, 17:54
Yes, but we are talking 50's and 60's, where Russian avant-garde was either dead or in the West, and in country of their origin reigned SocRealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrealism)
Also focus of article is not birth of avant-garde, but it's use in Cold war propaganda, among other assets like supposedly independent press and radio.

zenith
7th November 2010, 12:21
Yes, but we are talking 50's and 60's, where Russian avant-garde was either dead or in the West, and in country of their origin reigned SocRealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrealism)
Also focus of article is not birth of avant-garde, but it's use in Cold war propaganda, among other assets like supposedly independent press and radio.
Thanks Luke,

Just seems strange that the CIA thought showing the Russians an art style they themselves
had largely pioneered 50-60 years earlier was going to freak them out.
Must have been amusing to many Russians that Western artists were seemingly that far behind.
Anyhow, in the end art is free again and I guess in some small (?) way we have the CIA to
thank for that (cough,holding back vomit). :)

Peace

Lost Soul
7th November 2010, 14:16
Art or propaganda?

I used to work in a museum and the director bought sh*t for art. Heck, if I could do it, it wasn't art. At least he wasn't so bad as to promote shock art (temporary in nature and shocking to the senses like a Madonna covered with sh*t or Christ soaking in elephant urine). The worse was in the SF Art Institute where a fellow agreed to be an exhibit nekkid and tied up. As part of the shock, he was sodomized. He didn't agree to that. I hate shock art and modern art and see hundreds of kids going to art school. They're going to graduate heavily into debt with no job prospects to help them pay off their school loans. No one seems to have to told them that great artists all needed rich patrons. Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Reubens, Rembrandt, Steen, the Peale family, Stuart all had rich patrons.

Wood
7th November 2010, 14:29
I think it is well known in the art world (at least I have heard about it ten years ago in an academic context) how american abstract expressionism was a tool of the establishment to project the american power into the cultural sphere, that was heavily dominated by the europeans until that time. It was the last movement of 'modern' art, ending the 'modern' industrial age leaded by Europe. Then we got into the pop art, consumerism and postmodern world, leaded by the USA.

What I didn't know, though, is that it was directly funded by the CIA, but it makes sense.

MariaDine
7th November 2010, 14:47
For the love of God...............the article above is more than a half a century late. Everybody knows it since...«ever» . !

Haven't you heard ?....Art doesn't paint the world...it paints Ideas !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism

NoTingles
7th November 2010, 15:20
msg. deleted