Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

daily.jstor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 264 posts

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

#121

Post by coldtea »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #119
coldtea wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not just about the "American art scene". Western European artists in the same "genre" also got funded in similar ways.

>The rest of the world lived it's own life.

Perhaps, but this is not about what happened in Mongolian or Indonesian art scenes, but mostly focused on the cold war theater of US and Western Europe.

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

#122

Post by ninalanyon »

verisimi wrote: post #66
left-struck wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would fund things which make people less susceptible to manipulation and more equipped to think for themselves. Because I believe in democracy not as a political tool but as a fundamental right. I don’t wish to use democracy to gain more power. But maybe that’s why I’ll never be in that position, to make that choice.

> I would fund things which make people less susceptible to manipulation and more equipped to think for themselves. This also would be manipulative. If you think society can provide you freedom, you are looking in the wrong places.

So where should one look?

It seems tome that society is very much what does provide freedom, just not all freedoms.

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

#123

Post by coldtea »

zombot wrote: post #118
coldtea wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the art of understanding terms have different meanings based on context and use, not one based on some definition handed down by the Gods that's applicable everywhere, that we should not let die out.

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

#124

Post by ivan_gammel »

philipallstar wrote: post #120
ivan_gammel wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of the significant works of modern art were created before CIA was founded. The title is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. But "who cares" question points to something different: indeed, who cares if the knowledge acquired by the reader will be shallow and misleading? I do care. You may not. It's a matter of attitude. People are free to choose their chewing gum, right?

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

#125

Post by ivan_gammel »

coldtea wrote: post #123
zombot wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's the art of understanding terms have different meanings based on context and use, not one based on some definition handed down by the Gods that's applicable everywhere, that we should not let die out.

No, sorry, this is not the case. :) Not every popular idea has a free pass on this ground, especially not if it was created by a propaganda machine.

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

#126

Post by tryauuum »

cyberjar wrote: post #96
ivan_gammel wrote: post #85

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.

I think it a reference to "default city" from the russian internet, when people noticed that people from Moscow never specify the city when talking about topics which would normally require knowledge of which city are they residents of

Eventually it evolved, sometimes people say "hey, I'm from DC" or "hey, I live in DC2" (that means the second largest city, Saint-Petersburg)

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

#127

Post by OroPla »

zombot wrote: post #118
coldtea wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that it is incredibly stupid to call something from 1870 "modern". The word modern has a a clear meaning of "just now" / "contemporary". Not two hundred years ago.

It shouldn't be attached to anything that can age out of this meaning.

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

#128

Post by rramon »

lmf4lol wrote: post #63
rramon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda paradox because AI seems better at replicating complex classic paintings and realism than rather simple modern parametric imagery.

until you begin to really LOOK at it

Yeah, flaws hide within the complexity, with simple stuff it's more obvious.

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

#129

Post by ivan_gammel »

coldtea wrote: post #121
ivan_gammel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not just about the "American art scene". Western European artists in the same "genre" also got funded in similar ways. > The rest of the world lived it's own life. Perhaps, but this is not about what happened in Mongolian or Indonesian art scenes, but mostly focused on the cold war theater of US and Western Europe.

First of all, what "genre"? I assume, abstract expressionism? Second, why would anyone fund specifically abstract expressionism and for what purpose given the diversity of art movements of that time? Third, what do you even know about contemporary art of Europe to make such bold claims?

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

#130

Post by MachineMan »

Old news. Modern art is Antiart made to destroy European culture and replace it for the global debauchery of Americana. Harmful to the soul, void of talent, turning western civilization from master painters to banana + duct tape.

EDIT: Saachi works similar to the way boy and girl bands are created. They are not artists, but underpaid unknowns whose works are packaged, productized, propped up, marketed and sold like Kpop idols. It’s a machine.

Post reply on HN