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

151–160 of 264 posts

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

#151

Post by wewxjfq »

MachineMan wrote: post #130

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 K…

A banana taped to the wall is a deeper and more profound art commentary than yours.

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

#153

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Garlef wrote: post #140
OroPla wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The word has not only one but several clear meanings: > In the context of art history, modernity (Fr. modernité) has a more limited sense, modern art covering the period of c. 1860–1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

The more relevant term is Modernism, which was a wave of anti-realist abstraction in the arts and sciences.

It's more than a century old now.

"Modern art" in the 1950s/60s post-war sense means extreme abstraction with no realism at all.

Ironically abstraction can work in two directions - evocative messes like Pollock, or clean geometry and abstract functionalism in design and architecture.

The CIA liked the former in art because it was bold, challenging, abrasive, and individualistic. And the artists were drunks and addicts who were easy to own.

The other direction became domestic and corporate design.

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

#154

Post by mapt »

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.

This is a rich thing to say about the term "Modern", which is basically baked in with an expiration date.

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

#155

Post by kakacik »

WD-42 wrote: post #18

I don’t know if this is a reaction to AI or something, but recently I’ve only been interested in classical/realism art. I just can’t do abstract cubes anymore. The default wallpaper of windows 11 is a perfect example - I hate it. Give me a wallpaper of some painting from the Renaissance.

> I just can’t do abstract cubes anymore

I never could, its boring low effort blah to me when standing next to Rembrandt (they never will but you get the idea). It just doesn't induce any strong emotions, and why the heck should I force that process just to feel conforming to expected general emotions in the crowd.

Do you see the same value, and extend same respect towards say Chris Sawyer' Transport Tycoon made mostly in assembly, or some claude's 5 minute output to prompt, even if it roughly works? 'But I had this idea, man!

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

#156

Post by modo_mario »

jonnybgood wrote: post #146
MachineMan wrote: post #130

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 K…

Most of greatest works of modern art are European. The term “modern art” is in reference to an era that we are no longer in. You have a strong opinion. I would highly implore you to learn more about art history and why art is the way it is today. You’ll learn why banana and duct tape is why it is. What makes an art work museum worthy? It’s very rewarding to have that insight.

I feel like a good number of people have gotten fatigue from the share of mindspace given to art that is deemed valuable due to some art history, that you maybe even can only get if you have knowledge of art history or read the plague attributing the "clever" meaning.

Not everyone gives about the class signaling that brings or the like or the insight that makes one say 'oooh i get it now' or how avant garde in a slightly new way the next pollock is. I think it's fitting how someone else compared it to the declinging returns of bitcoin mining. After Duchamp's Fountain, Cattelan's Comedian, Warhol's campbell cans,...what share still give a shit about definitional art or other similarly iterated on styles? Maybe you can make a piece about it.

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

#158

Post by OroPla »

Garlef wrote: post #140
OroPla wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The word has not only one but several clear meanings: > In the context of art history, modernity (Fr. modernité) has a more limited sense, modern art covering the period of c. 1860–1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

If it was clear we wouldn't be having this conversation.

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

#159

Post by philipallstar »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #124
philipallstar wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, perhaps you're right. I think people think of "banana nailed to wall" as the outcome of modern art, and that I think is more recent. But there are works older than the CIA that look younger than it, such as Kandinski, and perhaps that is indeed misleading.

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

#160

Post by MachineMan »

modo_mario wrote: post #141
MachineMan wrote: post #130

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 K…

Maybe it's just semantics but: I wouldn't use the nomer americana which is a grouping of styles itself becoming less comon. Secondly I wouldn't ascribe intentionality to all if it. That's what made it so dangerous and imo destructive. It self-propagates. I saw people in the arts in turn instilling the idea that all these modern greats in some slightly different way pushed the boundaries with their slightly new thing…

I would mostly agree with you in that legitimate movements are very frequently ideologically captured and utilized by agencies. Art is no exception. The individual artist, like the individual musician, or disney princess going bad, is ill equipped against the forces at play that use these expressions of culture either for the transition of the republic towards an empire, its hegemony or its ultimate decline. When an agency becomes the patron of the arts, there is a cultural objective and it is the strength of culture, not might, that sustains a civilization. Religion is the state recognized cult, and culture flows from it.
Post reply on HN