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

241–250 of 264 posts

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

#241

Post by coldtea »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #219
coldtea wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume, abstract expressionism? Yes, abstract expressionism, but also other mostly US-led scenes like pop art to a degree. > Second, why would anyone fund specifically abstract expressionism and for what purpose given the diversity of art movements of that time? It had a US lead at the time, easier to explain US institutions promoting and do cross-continent exchanges and sponsorships, and conveniently apolitical…

So, on the question about your knowledge of European contemporary art you reply with the list of books about American art history, written and published in USA for American reader. Ok.

We're discussing the role of CIA, an American organization, in the Cold War era promotion of abstract expressionism ("modern art"). The books cover that, and have references to both the US and European side, artists and institutions.

The first book, which is also the canonical one on the subject, is not "written and published in USA for American reader". It's a book by a British historian, first published in the late 90s in Britain, then republished in the US (and all over Europe, there's German, French, Spanish etc versions).

The second book explicitly concerns the transition of power in the art scene and the interplay between Europe and the US in the same cold war period.

The third is broken in different essays, including one explicitly on "Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War", and how it was used internationally.

All three are academic books, not some fringe conspiracy theories.

And these books, and others, have been translated, read, and discussed in Europe. I've read them, and hundred more on European 20th century art, which is besides the point, as most of the others are off topic, we're not discussing say Dada or Cubism or Arte Povera here, but something specific.

Anything to contribute besides being ad-hominem, wrong, and rude?

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

#242

Post by verisimi »

left-struck wrote: post #100
verisimi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How would that be manipulative?

If you alter people's natural behaviour so that they are less manipulative, do you think this is the same as having not taken that action? It is a (further) unnatural intervention. It would be like giving someone an emetic because they ate too much.

The anti-manipulation training or the emetic could be beneficial, I agree.

The 'proper' answer would be to address the manipulator, to prevent their interventions, so that they can live their lives naturally, if they are not harming anyone.

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

#243

Post by verisimi »

ninalanyon wrote: post #122
verisimi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

One should look to oneself, and act according to what you believe to be right. Internalising an externally provided morality is not it.

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

#244

Post by red-iron-pine »

jaredandrews wrote: post #214
foolinaround wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what do mean with the example of thailand and thai food, and why is that a psy-op? Every country tries to subsidize and dump excess production of stuff they produce

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-surprising-reason-that-t...

not just Thai, the Japanese, Koreans, even Ethiopia (sometimes) tries food based influence measures

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

#245

Post by abandonliberty »

mikert89 wrote: post #16

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.

A great book on this is 'Active Measures'. Most things have an organic start, which are then amplified / co-opted by various actors.

The concept of Nuclear Winter first came up in the USA, then the Russians caught wind of it and claimed they had independently reached the same conclusions. This helped them turn public opinion against the deployment of more missile bases in Europe... conveniently after they had already deployed theirs.

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

#246

Post by wredcoll »

neuroticnews25 wrote: post #72
wredcoll wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This might shock you, but most art is made by artists. Artists also tend to spend lots of their time consuming other art. This informs the type of art they create.

Here's an anecdote: Pablo Picasso learned to paint realistic scenes, including humans, the equivalent of Da Vinci or Michelangelo, around the age of 17 or 18.

Where do you go from there? In his case, he went towards cubism and other such "modern art". Why do you suppose that is?

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

#247

Post by 1659447091 »

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.

They arent redefining terms. They are pointing out that "modern art" can refer to "modern art" from the 1890s or it can refer to "modern art" from the 1940s, because both being "modern art".

There is a language comprehension issue in this thread. At no point does the title imply its invention, it does however imply it is about the CIA and it's a huge tell identifying the injection of personal bias into meaning through either lazy reading, internal personal grievances, or a lost in translation misunderstanding.

"modern art" is of larger scope than CIA; thus "CIA" is the stronger relevant subject matter which narrows the secondary subject and should be understood/read as "modern art in the CIA era" or " CIA era modern art". The "era" is derived by applying "CIA" to "modern art".

This is probably where the mis-read/mis-translation happened. Since "era" is not explicit, modern art narrowed to all things within CIA scope could imply the CIA had a department full of alternative lifestyle bohemian spys creating and spreading modern art (not far off though, they commissioned works and funded related entities). A basic knowing of the CIA would dismiss this as absurd.

However, a translation error happening here can turn "modern art created by the CIA" into "modern art invented by the CIA".

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

#248

Post by ogou »

The resistance to abstraction in the early 1900s came from a failed art student named Adolf Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_exhibition). It was amplified by post-war Soviet propaganda and that is what the CIA was poking at during late modernism. Hitler and the Soviets wanted social realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_realism) to offer idealized citizens, not individual expression or any kind of doubt really. They are not the only ones. Post-George Floyd exhibitions pivoted heavily to representation and social realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Sherald). That is still happening. The latest is none other than Trump and Pete Hegseth, who post classic German propaganda style AI images of young white people in working class contexts.

Abstract Expressionism was the pinnacle of modern art and was much more than a style or aesthetic. It was a total embrace of pure individuality. That's why it has been resisted by every social movement since. It is the essence of non-conformity. Political groups require conformity.

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

#249

Post by [deleted] »

verisimi wrote: post #242
left-struck wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that be manipulative?

If you alter people's natural behaviour so that they are less manipulative, do you think this is the same as having not taken that action? It is a (further) unnatural intervention. It would be like giving someone an emetic because they ate too much. The anti-manipulation training or the emetic could be beneficial, I agree. The 'proper' answer would be to address the manipulator, to prevent their interventions, so tha…

[deleted]

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

#250

Post by [deleted] »

verisimi wrote: post #243
ninalanyon wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where should one look? It seems tome that society is very much what does provide freedom, just not all freedoms.

One should look to oneself, and act according to what you believe to be right. Internalising an externally provided morality is not it.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN