• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Modern art was CIA 'weapon'

Dibbler

Dibbler

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
680
Location
East Coast USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Back in my College days I liked to think that modern art was sort of a commie thing. After all, filling public spaces with meaningless art is one of the planks. Surprising, (not), to find our own CIA pushing the modernist art form in order to fight international communism, or so this article states.

President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot."

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 connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.
Click to expand...

Modern art was CIA 'weapon' - World - News - The Independent
 
Dibbler said:
Back in my College days I liked to think that modern art was sort of a commie thing. After all, filling public spaces with meaningless art is one of the planks. Surprising, (not), to find our own CIA pushing the modernist art form in order to fight international communism, or so this article states.

President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot."



Modern art was CIA 'weapon' - World - News - The Independent
Click to expand...

True. However, it should be noted that they were also seeking to bury the more Marxist "Social Realism" art style under an ocean of "abstract" white noise.

Abstract modern art wasn't threatening in the same way the more Soviet-influenced styles were. It simply didn't "mean" much of anything at all to most people.
 
If abstract expressionists were working for the CIA then who was funding the Dadaists?
 
Same with literary and art criticism. Infiltrating the liberal and anti-Stalinist Left intelligentsia was something the CIA was very much interested in.
 
Huh, and I like Pollocks works.

I thibk anyone who presentw art work's that could be characterized as " modern or abstract " should also be forced to present REAL art.

You know art that takes talent.
 
History has something of a cruel sense of humor. The Soviet Union, with their exclusion of the Western media as well as their...ahem...preservation...of their highly trained traditional painters have gifted to the the modern world a resurgence of artistic ideals thought to be long dead. With the removal of the iron curtain numerous Russian artists are enjoying increased celebrity status in an art world that is returning to the traditional.
 
If accurate, my guess is that the CIA was reacting against WPA supported artists like painter like Diego Rivera, who glorified workers and labor solidarity, and photographer like Dorothy Lange who showed the truth about the USA's treatment of the poor. Especially in the early years of the cold war, anyone who openly addressed issues of racism, classism, suppression of labor organizers, and justice was supected of being a communist. That is because American communists were in the forefront of addressing issues that they considered the inherent flaws of capitalism.

Howver, abstract expressionism and other non-representational art froms were inevitable after the popularization of photography.
 
Fenton said:
Huh, and I like Pollocks works.

I thibk anyone who presentw art work's that could be characterized as " modern or abstract " should also be forced to present REAL art.

You know art that takes talent.
Click to expand...

Why? Abstract art should be judged on its own merits, not on whether the painter is skilled at other styles.

The world of abstract art is very competitive, getting in a good gallery or museum requires talent, many fail to make the cut.

Most, virtually all, of the most successful abstract painters were trained and capable of creating decent representational art.
 
Hard Truth said:
Why? Abstract art should be judged on its own merits, not on whether the painter is skilled at other styles.

The world of abstract art is very competitive, getting in a good gallery or museum requires talent, many fail to make the cut.

Most, virtually all, of the most successful abstract painters were trained and capable of creating decent representational art.
Click to expand...

I would say that getting into a good gallery or museum requires a successful argument that your work is modern and relevant. Skill level is near the bottom of prerequisites.
 
Fun fact: "Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neo-conservatism."....Kristol was affiliated with the Congress for Cultural Freedom; he wrote in Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952,...."

Per the OP's article, the Congress for Cultural Freedom was a front group for the CIA's cultural propaganda efforts.
 
Cardinal said:
I would say that getting into a good gallery or museum requires a successful argument that your work is modern and relevant. Skill level is near the bottom of prerequisites.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest that you try it. There is a lot of money that can be made in art once you get in to a good gallery or museum.
 
Hard Truth said:
Then I suggest that you try it. There is a lot of money that can be made in art once you get in to a good gallery or museum.
Click to expand...

No thanks. I still have the remnant of a soul left.

(edit: btw, I'm still talking about abstract art).
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Fun fact: "Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neo-conservatism."....Kristol was affiliated with the Congress for Cultural Freedom; he wrote in Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952,...."

Per the OP's article, the Congress for Cultural Freedom was a front group for the CIA's cultural propaganda efforts.
Click to expand...

Kristin claimed, somewhat with mixed results, that he had no idea Encounter was funded with CIA funds. I personally thought that even if he didn't know it was funded through the CIA, he would have accepted the task. By that time he had already started showing that he was fine with the concept of exposing socialists, the Communist Party, and doing what he could do to erode their influence in public life.

At any rate, I wholeheartedly support the concept. I just thought the discussion on the side was doubly laughable. For one thing, that community tended to exaggerate the extent upon which a revolution could be aided through art or literature (or simultaneously stopped with the two). Secondly, there is this expectation that the intellectual be some sort of distant moral observer and critic; untainted by government or establishment power structures.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps painters art was what was used from the CIA in the 1950's and 60's. But later the CIA might have switched artists from painters to Hollywood actors and movies.
 
DDD said:
The galleries ruin the soul huh? :)
Click to expand...

Heh, while it's certainly possible, I was really saying that in reference to...

"I would say that getting into a good gallery or museum requires a successful argument that your work is modern and relevant. Skill level is near the bottom of prerequisites."

In other words, you can paint a turd, but as long as you're really, really good at rationalizing it after the fact you don't really have to have a lot of craftsmanship.
 
Cardinal said:
Heh, while it's certainly possible, I was really saying that in reference to...

"I would say that getting into a good gallery or museum requires a successful argument that your work is modern and relevant. Skill level is near the bottom of prerequisites."

In other words, you can paint a turd, but as long as you're really, really good at rationalizing it after the fact you don't really have to have a lot of craftsmanship.
Click to expand...

This implies talking to artists. One work of art should not be valued after someone rationalizes or tells you how valuable an artwork may be. A good artwork should be appealing on its own.
 
DDD said:
This implies talking to artists. One work of art should not be valued after someone rationalizes or tells you how valuable an artwork may be. A good artwork should be appealing on its own.
Click to expand...

And if you believe that then abstract impressionism isn't for you since the work would be centered around the process of its creation, as well as being able to understand its intent and modern cultural relevance.

A really good work of art, in my opinion, is multi-layered. There should be an immediate positive or powerful initial reaction followed by greater appreciation when more information is unveiled after the fact.
 
Cardinal said:
And if you believe that then abstract impressionism isn't for you since the work would be centered around the process of its creation, as well as being able to understand its intent and modern cultural relevance.

A really good work of art, in my opinion, is multi-layered. There should be an immediate positive or powerful initial reaction followed by greater appreciation when more information is unveiled after the fact.
Click to expand...

Well, we cannot debate tastes, so...
 
Dibbler said:
Back in my College days I liked to think that modern art was sort of a commie thing. After all, filling public spaces with meaningless art is one of the planks. Surprising, (not), to find our own CIA pushing the modernist art form in order to fight international communism, or so this article states.

President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot."



Modern art was CIA 'weapon' - World - News - The Independent
Click to expand...

Yeah maybe.

It may be possible even probable that the CIA did this but so what ?

As it turns out they did not have to do it much.

I was recently reading a book about money laundering and the chapter on art was one of the surprising parts. Many experts in money laundering have used art galleries and investments to move ill gotten money into legitimate accounts. If you have illegally acquired money such as from drug sales, one way to move it is to paint some crappy art and put it on display in a low end unpopular art gallery. Then pay some whiny art students at the local college to go buy it for ridiculous prices.

Apparently this sort of thing is done far more often than most realize and is a tough one for the police to track. It also explains why there is so much crappy art in the world.

Seems like the CIA may have wasted it's time.
 
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
Click to expand...

Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom