4 ms·
Another possibility - CIA just sponsors random stuff to promote confusion in enemy ranks. Then claims it was for Cold War purposes. Adam Curtis spoke about Rus
by Ygg2 11y ago
Another possibility - CIA just sponsors random stuff to promote confusion in enemy ranks. Then claims it was for Cold War purposes.
Adam Curtis spoke about Russian government vocally backing various organizations, some hostile and some friendly to it. That way people are never sure who to trust, because even opposition is funded by gov. One difference is that Russians broadcast who they sponsor, given their target is the public.
Makes me wonder if CIA let slip it was using art as weapon to Russians, then watch them panic.
- VLM 11y agoI'd kick it back a step, maybe as a spy novel plot, its no secret that "forever" the left promotes that all cultural advancement only comes from the left, nothing culturally worth anything comes from the right. I'm not trying to promote it, I'm trying to observe it. This has been a constant for an extremely long time. Meanwhile the Russians were a little authoritarian and locked down their art... why? Well one "spy novel grade of plot" is the Americans will fall for the bait and then they can keep an eye on the americans given that the artists tended left wing anyway. Of course the rabbit hole never ends and a even more "spy novel plot" is the americans knew the russians knew so seeing as modern art is pretty much a waste of time WRT geopolitical struggles, we likely fed the artists a side dish of disinformation knowing that some of the disinfo will get back to the russians.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago>the left promotes that all cultural advancement only comes from the left, nothing culturally worth anything comes from the right. The right promotes that idea too; or rather, that all (gov't sponsored) cultural advancement only comes from the left.
- cousin_it 11y agoI guess the orthodox right-wing view is that "progress" shouldn't apply to culture at all, and that it actually ruins culture: a person thinking of progress will never build the Sagrada Familia, only the Barbican Estate. (Similar examples can be found for music, literature, the visual arts, etc.)
- gglitch 11y agoWe're saying Gaudi's work represents tradition?
- cousin_it 11y agoWell, it's a Catholic basilica in a mostly Gothic style that's being built for 100 years. It incorporates some ideas that were new for its time, but so did the Notre Dame (flying buttresses). I guess traditionalists are not against all new ideas, they're more against thinking that old = bad.
- gglitch 11y agoI'm sure we can agree that anyone who builds a politics on anything as reductive as [old|new] = [bad|good] is not helping much.
- cousin_it 11y agoJust look at any left-wing art manifesto, there's plenty of those. Here's a famous one from 1917 Russia: https://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/mayakovsky/1917/slap-in-face-public-taste.htm https://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/mayakovsky/1...
- clock_tower 11y agoThat's certainly my view, at least: good and bad are orthogonal to new and old. There are periods where new tends to imply good, others where new tends to imply bad (think of the material culture of the '70s), and others where there's no particular correlation; but if something doesn't contravene your values and objectives, there's no particular reason not to adopt it. Of course, sometimes things turn out to be more hostile to you than you expected them to be, so caution is in order -- but not paralysis.
- coldtea 11y ago>Another possibility - CIA just sponsors random stuff to promote confusion in enemy ranks. Then claims it was for Cold War purposes. I don't think this is the case here. Can't speak for the US, where it might not have mattered much, but in post-war Europe the arts (fine arts, writing, etc) were very important in left wing politics and a serious social force to want to control. To the point that such art was a popular phenomenon, not something isolated -- people, including younger people, were hungry for those things (from the way 60's US kids were hungry for rock music et al. Artists played a prominent role in culture, were celebrated in the media, participated in demonstrations, influenced politics etc. Edit: think of people like Aragon, Sartre, Gunter Gruss, Duras, Montand, Beuys, Brecht, Godard, Antonioni, Theodorakis, Dario Fo, and countless others etc. Now, of these artists there were 2 major divisions: those loyal to the party and the communist cause, and those critical of USSR and more into intellectual euro-communism etc. CIA managed to fund and nourish the latter, more easily tempted by modern abstract expressionism, pop art, jazz, etc, which, while more progressive in stance, it was also more watered down and didn't pose any major political threat (the way USSR influence did). >Adam Curtis spoke about Russian government vocally backing various organizations, some hostile and some friendly to it. That way people are never sure who to trust, because even opposition is funded by gov. So, just like with the US and lots of opposition parties, "independent" organizations, NGOs, etc. Only the latter is doing it in other countries too (funding various groups in favor of its interests, and even some seemingly against). And unlike the US government, foreign governments can and do fall because of such schemes, or at least their domestic policies can be heavily influenced by such foreign intervention.
- JonnieCache 11y agoHere's the adam curtis clip youre talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM