6 ms·

This statement from the article strikes me as a bit of a stretch: Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years withou

This statement from the article strikes me as a bit of a stretch: Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA. Perhaps not duped. But, how many other types of art were stifled by having a secret fund devoted to creating, promoting and praising one type of art. Which raises the question of why the CIA chose abstract expressionism as the vehicle of choice for its propaganda. Perhaps because it is hard to be subversive with a work of art that every observer will interpret differently. Or perhaps because unlike other art that has some common ground for discourse between two observers, abstract art is like watching clouds pass by. "I see a baby!" one watcher will say. "I see a puppy!" another watcher will say. And that's where the conversation ends. It's the ultimate expression of individualism, but also the ultimate killer of dialogue.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
It's hard to make a point about political violence with a maroon rectangle.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Yes and no. The maroon rectangle doesn't directly say anything. But Russian Expressionism wasn't free to paint that maroon rectangle, so the maroon rectangle could be a powerful statement of freedom. In Park City, Utah, there is (or at least was) a gallery that sold Russian Expressionist paintings. It had a painting in it that was controversial in Russian art in the 1960s. It showed workers in a cloth factory, and it was controversial because one of the workers had a wistful or dreamy expression on her face. That expression nearly cost the painter his license as an artist. That's how heavy-handed the USSR was toward art - you needed a license to be an artist, and the government cared about the expressions on peoples' faces in your paintings. Another thing I saw in that gallery: There was a difference in the landscapes done after 1990. They still are impressionist landscapes, but they have little dots of bright color where there were flowers. Pre-1990, the landscapes looked the same, but the overall impression was more drab. The freedom that came in 1991 showed up even in the landscapes, because the artists felt different.
  - mladenkovacevic 11y ago
    Coming from Soviet Union yes it's very destructive that Socialist Realism was the officially state-sponsored art movement. But how is that different from what the CIA is doing here. If they really wanted to be a patron of the arts and freedom of expression then why this focus on a single art movement.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      I see your point. But in the US, if the CIA didn't sponsor you, you could still paint whatever you wanted...
      - mladenkovacevic 11y ago
        Although that's mostly true (even though I'm certain there is a history of persecuted artists/writers/activists in the US), what does that have to do with the original article? Nobody is contesting that United States was not a more free society than the Soviet Union. The implication of art as a tool for propaganda doesn't go away simply because there were other active artists who weren't funded by the CIA.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Ah, I see your point now. Quite right.
    - beat 11y ago
      Because the people in charge of the program at the CIA were fans of abstract expressionism. To put it another way, they were using tax dollars in a very weird way to subsidize the kind of art they liked.
      - mladenkovacevic 11y ago
        It seems highly unlikely that this decision was made based on personal artistic preferences of the CIA employees in charge of this program. Like when the question came up "Hey which art movement are we going to prop up with millions of dollars?" some head honcho said "I like abstract expressionism.. make it so". To put it another way, do you believe any decision at the CIA involving millions of dollars is not made without hordes of analysts poring over every available action and every possible outcome.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

It's hard to make a point about political violence with a maroon rectangle.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
Yes and no. The maroon rectangle doesn't directly say anything. But Russian Expressionism wasn't free to paint that maroon rectangle, so the maroon rectangle could be a powerful statement of freedom. In Park City, Utah, there is (or at least was) a gallery that sold Russian Expressionist paintings. It had a painting in it that was controversial in Russian art in the 1960s. It showed workers in a cloth factory, and it was controversial because one of the workers had a wistful or dreamy expression on her face. That expression nearly cost the painter his license as an artist. That's how heavy-handed the USSR was toward art - you needed a license to be an artist, and the government cared about the expressions on peoples' faces in your paintings. Another thing I saw in that gallery: There was a difference in the landscapes done after 1990. They still are impressionist landscapes, but they have little dots of bright color where there were flowers. Pre-1990, the landscapes looked the same, but the overall impression was more drab. The freedom that came in 1991 showed up even in the landscapes, because the artists felt different.
- mladenkovacevic 11y ago
  Coming from Soviet Union yes it's very destructive that Socialist Realism was the officially state-sponsored art movement. But how is that different from what the CIA is doing here. If they really wanted to be a patron of the arts and freedom of expression then why this focus on a single art movement.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    I see your point. But in the US, if the CIA didn't sponsor you, you could still paint whatever you wanted...
    - mladenkovacevic 11y ago
      Although that's mostly true (even though I'm certain there is a history of persecuted artists/writers/activists in the US), what does that have to do with the original article? Nobody is contesting that United States was not a more free society than the Soviet Union. The implication of art as a tool for propaganda doesn't go away simply because there were other active artists who weren't funded by the CIA.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Ah, I see your point now. Quite right.
  - beat 11y ago
    Because the people in charge of the program at the CIA were fans of abstract expressionism. To put it another way, they were using tax dollars in a very weird way to subsidize the kind of art they liked.
    - mladenkovacevic 11y ago
      It seems highly unlikely that this decision was made based on personal artistic preferences of the CIA employees in charge of this program. Like when the question came up "Hey which art movement are we going to prop up with millions of dollars?" some head honcho said "I like abstract expressionism.. make it so". To put it another way, do you believe any decision at the CIA involving millions of dollars is not made without hordes of analysts poring over every available action and every possible outcome.