Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 31 2015, @11:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the that-explains-a-few-things dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday November 01 2015, @03:35AM

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday November 01 2015, @03:35AM (#257084) Journal

    The short story is that russian propaganda was that America was culturally barren.

    You missed the point that, at that time, McCarthy was doing as much as he could to ensure that America was culturally barren.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Sunday November 01 2015, @10:02AM

    by mtrycz (60) on Sunday November 01 2015, @10:02AM (#257126)

    Or, you know, it could be both.

    --
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
  • (Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:33PM

    by Hyperturtle (2824) on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:33PM (#257233)

    Does Ted Cruz remind anyone of McCarthy? I even have accidentally called one the other in conversation. Cruz may have some merits related to business specific views (I'm otherwise not a fan), but... for some reason I see the Tea Party types that follow him as a partial extension of what McCarthy was trying to do, a suppression agenda run amok, complete with excessive patriot flag waving and plenty of the God Bless America types that raise Reagan to divinity status.

    If someone can correct the errors of my ways, I'll read any objective reviews (if such things exist) regarding his political leanings, but... that feeling is tough to shake. I get the vibe that whatever I think is "wrong" with the man was also wrong with McCarthy, even if it isn't anti communist stuff being paraded around this cycle.

    I also seem to lump Trump into a similar, but not quote the same category -- like Trump can be the mouthpiece for badmouthing others, with a puppet master Cruz in the background. I think Cruz is more "electable" than Trump (whatever that means -- I have no intentions of endorsing either), but I can see the same fan base revolving around them both. They seem to me as two circles in a Venn diagram and I am not sure what the center of gravity is that keeps them together. Perhaps self-righteousness, where one is egotistical and plays the confident fool and the other is egotistical while playing as the trustworthy meek?

    Palin was like a Trump, but not as good of one for the role. But Cruz has the folksy element that she had that made her popular, that Trump doesn't have. If Trump wasn't the type to drop out of the race rather than lose (better to be a quitter than a loser, I'd expect), I'd almost bet Trump and Cruz would be running-mates... I do not know how they would manage to restrain each other, though, so I don't see that working due to the egos involved. But I am not known for my successful political scrying in the crystal 8 ball I have, so that's why I ask if anyone had similar vibes.

    Well I hope I am not modded into oblivion for offending people that are fans. I am hoping to see what others think about these two. (As far as Republicans go, I am going to guess Rubio gets the nomination for no reasons other than Trump and Carson are little more than entertaining distractions to get the undesirables to bleed money and drop out, and that Jeb has made campaign mistakes and will be unable to catch up.)