Live data from Hacker News

Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

daily.jstor.org

71–80 of 264 posts

Re: Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

#71

Betteridge’s law prevails. A fun read, but not as fun as the title suggests. tl;dr Modern art existed before the CIA and even CIA predecessors did not originate it, but they did push it abroad to show that America is great because we put up with modern art made by socialists depite most americans disliking both the art and the artists

Exactly, it is a weird title. Modern art is as much of a "psy-op" as: - grocery stores - NASA - rock music - psychedelics and hippies - a strong middle class - affordable vehicles and the highway system - Hollywood movies - Books and just about anything. Cultural "warfare" is a different ballgame. K-Pop and K-dramas are "cultural warfare" from Korea. J-pop and anime from Japan (here's a clickbait title: Was Studio Gh…

Books...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhQ5678cJU8

Re: Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love art. Contemporary art is a bunch of ugly wankery by pretentious people who are bored of actual beauty and can only amuse themselves by creating ugly stuff, then claiming "you just don't get it". The world would be a significantly better place without contemporary art in it.

If there is any change I could make to the human personality at large it would be the reflexive opinion that anything you don't understand, or even dislike, is automatically morally wrong.

There is nothing to understand, bunch of jerks signaling sophistication or laundering money while poisoning the soul of men.

Re: Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

#73
The CIA didn’t invent the camera which was really the trigger for the arrival of modern art and the abandonment of representation everywhere in the world.

At the same time though, if you go somewhere like the Guggenheim in Bilbao, upon leaving that fantastic building it does occur to you that the whole thing is an outpost for American artistic culture, or if you want to frame it another way, American cultural imperialism because every artwork in there (pretty much, there’s a yayoi kusama mirror box for the instagrammers) is American and something of an modernist and contemporary assault against every tradition of European art, including Picasso. So to frame the whole of American artistic culture as the CIA’s doing is like the tail wagging the dog of a broader phenomenon – rich Americans in general funded this movement into existence and the CIA likely joined in.

Re: Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The leadership of nations requires you to put pressure on the thoughts and minds of your people, left to their own devices those minds will simply be shaped by someone else. The morality in it comes from your motivation and methods. Secretly giving piles of money to the weirdos you successfully identify as being the leaders of artistic movements to amplify those movements can't be all that bad. The question of the da…

I wouldn’t because the CIA is explicitly barred by Congress (Title 50 U.S.C. § 3093) from conducting influence operations intended to affect American public opinion since the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991.

Hence why USAID was (allegedly) co-opted to perform the same role.

The right-wing areas of the internet, even now, say the decline of whatever progressive or left-wing phenomenon they’re talking about is because they ran out of money after USAID was defunded.

Re: Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

#77

Betteridge’s law prevails. A fun read, but not as fun as the title suggests. tl;dr Modern art existed before the CIA and even CIA predecessors did not originate it, but they did push it abroad to show that America is great because we put up with modern art made by socialists depite most americans disliking both the art and the artists

But I mean is this something that is supposed to be shocking or revelaing? All countries want to promote their culture so they win the soft war and influence. You think people just magically started liking kpop in the us? Look up what the south korean gov planned and how it worked out overall. It is interesting they were taunting the Soviets by saying "look our artists are so free even we dont know wtf they are makin…

> You think people just magically started liking kpop in the us?

How about British Invasion, also facilitated you think?

Re: Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

#78
post #38

Far more things/movements are orchestrated than are organic. This is to me one of the most surprising things I have learned as I got older.

I am starting to be under the impression that movements are steered by leaders but formed only when the underlying conditions are present. No single element can make the movement. I am reluctant to believe stories like "The CIA created modern art", as it is just a single part, although a very influential part, of the movement. I say this as somebody who is very cautious about believing anything and am quick to call t…

Is the claim “created”?

My understanding is that the CIA influenced the rise of modern art over Soviet realism, eg, by hosting shows and bidding up prices.

That is “created” in the sense that a movement would have been smaller or fizzled without their patronage, but not “created” as in invented absent an underlying cohort of sincere artists.

If you believe the CIA was an important and necessary part of the movement, you seem to agree they created.1 modern art, even if they co-opted rather than created.2 the style.

Re: Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

#79

“educate, inspire, and strengthen the hearts and wills of free men.” Funny how times have changed and more or less everyone on every side is fighting for the strength and survival of their own groupthink and little more.

I don't think it was genuine then as well, just a slogan for "fighting the communists".

You lie today, you lied then.

Same with "let my people go" for the Soviet jews, it was more about draining the "human capital" from USSR.

Re: Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually, people realize they will never agree and therefore don't have to fight. They realize the majority of their beliefs already existed before they were born and will continue on after they're dead. They have nothing to add to the conversation while they are too busy fighting. They turn their focus to developing their ideas peacefully and let their subcultures flourish once again. This isn't the first cycle an…

"Live and let live" is in fundamental tension with "protect the weak." ALL aggressive ideologies act as heroes protecting others from oppression. There is a barely expressible thing that allows people to live in peace with those they disagree with. It is a personality trait, an aesthetic, a mood associated with the best of the Enlightenment but never described by it. Perhaps people need relative silence, a few good b…

i agree with your sentiment, but what you disagree in is crucial here.

there's a class of topics where disagreement means the death and dispair of one side.

hoping to live and let live, with a disagreeing party that doesn't "let live", is a fool's errand.

Post reply on HN