Live data from Hacker News

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

daily.jstor.org

111–120 of 264 posts

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

#111
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "modern art" they mean things like abstract expressionism.

Which is even more absurd

Not really absurd. That scene nearly dominated the art scene in the post war / cold war period, and for layman casual uses (and even for several critic treatments), it was almost synonymous with modern fine art in general (not "modernist" art, modern, as in contemporary).

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

#112

I feel like absolutely everything is a PsyOp. I mean look at how many big cities there are around the world, how many millions of people working in office buildings; every single day; thinking, crafting emails, organizing events, coordinating, writing up marketing, creating PowerPoint slides, filling out Excel sheets, writing up reports, writing up project briefs... Millions of brains and machines manipulating inform…

"Coffee break is over, stop thinking and get back to work."

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

#114

Not the first time when the Default Country thinks they invented everything. The title is almost comical. Modern art, as everyone should know, started in 1860s in Europe inspired by technological advances, globalization of trade and cultural exchange. Japanese art made huge blast, photography pushed to seek new forms of expression, social progress demanded new messages and new images. We had impressionism, post-impre…

"the Default Country" is a good one. I'll have to start using that.

For fun, ask a citizen of the Default Country where cars were invented ...

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

#115
A lot of people are confused by the term "modern art" in this.

This isn't meant to be about the idea of modern art in general, not about modernist art, or a "history of art" compatible conception of the term.

So whether "modern art started with the invention of the film camera" and other such claims about the late 19th here is irrelevant.

In the context of TFA and the CIA-related discussion, "modern art" refers mainly to abstract expressionism and to a lesser degree pop art and conceptual art, in US and Western Europe.

That was the scene and its sub-scenes which dominated the Western galleries and art world in the post "cold" war period, and for layman uses (and even for several critical treatments), it was synonymous with modern art, in the sense of the fine arts, in general. Hence the use of the term.

That's the way the term "modern art" is used in this.

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

#116
post #103

Not the first time when the Default Country thinks they invented everything. The title is almost comical. Modern art, as everyone should know, started in 1860s in Europe inspired by technological advances, globalization of trade and cultural exchange. Japanese art made huge blast, photography pushed to seek new forms of expression, social progress demanded new messages and new images. We had impressionism, post-impre…

Overall a great point, but I have a nit-pick: > Modern art, as everyone should know, started in 1860s in Europe As someone who is active in the German art scene, the understanding is not that clear-cut. Modern art, as I learned it, is "art in the modern period". So everything after the middle ages. Basically when people stopped only drawing religious art and portraits of nobles. What started in the 1860s is "modernis…

The 1860s as a starting decade is a popular conventional definition in English, in other languages "modern art" may be defined differently. But you are absolutely right, it makes more sense to call post-WW2 art the contemporary art or just postmodernism, because something that happened long before the birth of the half of the population of the planet isn't really "contemporary".

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

#118

Not the first time when the Default Country thinks they invented everything. The title is almost comical. Modern art, as everyone should know, started in 1860s in Europe inspired by technological advances, globalization of trade and cultural exchange. Japanese art made huge blast, photography pushed to seek new forms of expression, social progress demanded new messages and new images. We had impressionism, post-impre…

Sure. But those making the claim are not talking about that. They're talking about the post 50s abstract expressionism and pop art movements. Just because it says "modern art" doesn't mean it refers to any and all modern art, much less 19th century art or say cubism or dada.

The art of arbitrarily redefining existing terms will never die out.

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

#119
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is even more absurd

Not really absurd. That scene nearly dominated the art scene in the post war / cold war period, and for layman casual uses (and even for several critic treatments), it was almost synonymous with modern fine art in general (not "modernist" art, modern, as in contemporary).

The only thing where "American" art scene dominated was the auction space. And significant part of it was imported from Europe (no tariffs applied) and continued to feed from there later. The rest of the world lived it's own life.

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

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "modern art" they mean things like abstract expressionism.

Reduction of modern art to abstract expressionism is the same as reduction of cinema to MCU. Acceptable for a talk over couple beers, disqualifying factor for pretend-to-be intellectuals, mainly because it is cherry-picking based on the scale of a scandal rather than genuine interest in the history of art.

No, those are not the same. You might say it's like reducing superhero movies to "superhero movies made in the last 20 years", which actually most people do, and it's mostly understandable. Maybe those people wouldn't have what you'd call a "genuine interest in the superhero genre" but who cares? They weren't trying to demonstrate that, and what they were saying didn't require it.
Post reply on HN