Modern art was a “weapon” of the CIA
For decades it was either a rumor or a hoax in art circles, but it’s now a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used modern American art - including the works of artists such as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. Like a Renaissance prince - except that it operated in secret - the CIA promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.
@QWWG1WGA16PLUS1
archive.is (https://archive.is/20221117153320/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html)
Modern art was CIA ‘weapon’ | The Independent | The Independent
archived 17 Nov 2022 15:33:20 UTC
Why did the CIA back them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be cited as evidence of US creativity, intellectual freedom, and cultural power. Russian art, wedged in the communist ideological straitjacket, could not keep up.
The existence of this policy, which has been rumored and debated for years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unbeknownst to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the “long leash”.
https://www.independent.co.uk › news › world › modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
Modern art was CIA ‘weapon’ - The Independent
Modern art was CIA ‘weapon’ | The Independent | The Independent News World Modern art was CIA ‘weapon’ Revealed: how the spy agency used unwitting artists such as Pollock and de Kooning...
https://www.bbc.com › culture › article › 20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia
Was modern art a weapon of the CIA? - BBC Culture
Was modern art a weapon of the CIA? (Image credit: Central intelligence Agency) By Alastair Sooke 4th October 2016 The Abstract Expressionists emerged from obscurity in the late 1940s to...
Nazi Germany did the same thing with art (although ironically top ranked Nazi stole the real art from conquered countries).
“Visual symbolism was important to the Nazis, and Hitler himself had been a painter, so it is not surprising that they dedicated significant resources promoting their ideals through art. So how was the decision made? How were “degenerate” and “Aryan” artworks selected? If you look at the works of art that were glorified and compare them to those that were attacked by the Nazis, the differences usually seem clear enough; experimental, personal, non-representational art was rejected, whilst conventionally “beautiful,” stereotypically heroic art was revered. This seems like an obvious line to be taken by a totalitarian regime: everyone will find these artworks beautiful, and everyone will feel and think the same thing about them, without the risk of unwanted, random, personal, or unclear interpretations.”
So, watch for this Administration to tell people what art is acceptable.