3 ms·

EXACTLY! Modern art (and unlikely any other type of art) was not created as a psy-op. That is mere clickbaitery in headline writing. It was used, like other

by toss1 3y ago

EXACTLY! Modern art (and unlikely any other type of art) was not created as a psy-op. That is mere clickbaitery in headline writing. It was used, like other cultural exports, as one of many aspects of promoting US values and position.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
yeah this feels like it takes the term “psy-op” to mean anything a government supports that isn’t war? by this broad of a definition ambassadors and latin languages are also psy-ops
- kennywinker 3y ago
  There’s a difference between generalized arts funding, and ideologically directing fund with the intent of fueling movement that align with your ideology. Imagine if the cia had a tech incubator (imagine, lol. Without googling it, I’m pretty sure they do). They could fund anything that seemed likely to succeed, but then it would just be regular business development. If they fund things that align with a specific set of beliefs and goals, that’s another beast entirely
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    but everything the government fund aligns with some set of beliefs and goals — we don't fund any schools, they have to have curriculum standards... is public education a psy-op? States don't license any doctor, they have to meet certain criteria... are those state-level psy-ops?
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      > is public education a psy-op? I mean, in a way it is. Public education in america teaches narratives of colonialism and history that are generally pro-america. Even when they touch on things critically, there is a general slant towards mythologizing and deifying. I.e. "Thomas Jefferson was a great man and founding father of our great nation. Also he owned slaves, which was bad, but it was a different time." Attempts to push a little deeper in terms of criticism are usually met with an aggressive push back (e.g. the "critical race theory" hullabaloo). > States don't license any doctor, they have to meet certain criteria The state has definitely used it's powers, tho I'm not sure if doctor licensing has been specifically used, to marginalize people with beliefs considered radical. e.g. during https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism > are those state-level psy-ops? The term psy-op is specifically about information control and messaging, etc. So I wouldn't apply to just anything that the state does to advance an ideology. But I think it applies well to arts, which is all about ideas. It doesn't apply as well as a description of the use of doctor licensing to further an ideology. For tech companies, it depends on what the tech company does, i.e. a bunch of the FUD around tiktok is about the information control it represents. I don't think psy-op is a good description of an education system with state-directed biases. Because that's more of a long-term state project, rather than a short-term targeted influencing. To me education's pro-state issues are much better described by words like "bias" or "propaganda" or "indoctrination". Probably a longer answer than you were expecting, but I really do think cia-funding art + writing is pretty clearly a psy-op. That doesn't mean the artists they funded weren't real or good. It just means their level of success was partially the result of ideologically directed funding by the cia with the goal of influencing public opinion about communism/socialism.
      - FreshStart 3y ago
        Even from a graveyard or dungheap good things can grow, aware of the past to leave behind The exceptionalism derived from accidents of history & circumstances is strange.
    - Shish2k 3y ago
      The things you’re describing are done by the government to its own citizens, theoretically for the benefit of the citizens; the things being described as psy-ops are a government controlling other countries’ citizens for the benefit of the government
      - micromacrofoot 3y ago
        arguably these things were also good for the people though? i.e., americans winning the culture war and having a higher status than the soviet union
lotux 3y ago
What was US values back then? If it was fighting USSR then it was a psy-op.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  Modern art extends roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s.
  - saghm 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure the CIA wasn't funding art before it was founded in 1947, so I have to imagine the US values for the part of modern art history before then aren't what GP was asking about
lacy_tinpot 3y ago
I see this as no different than the Renaissance being funded by Italian bankers and the church.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  That is an entirely different concept. The sponsorship of art in the country is different than sponsorship of art outside the country. Secondly the sponsorship is done by private individuals instead of a government or military order. CIA cannot be operating in the US and it is a govt institution.
  - jerbearito 3y ago
    It's not an entirely different concept. The comparison he replied to was about both groups funding art to advance their causes and promote their perspectives (pro-Western, pro-God, etc.). That's a perfectly acceptable comparison and it's accurate. The differences you listed are also valid.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    States weren't as rigid in the past. Those Tassis family portraits or whatever cannot be meaningfully separated into "state funded" and "privately funded" because the family's wealth was deeply tied to their relationship with various states.
  - lacy_tinpot 3y ago
    The church's motivation was precisely to spread Christendom to show the sophistication of the church. So it was very much a work of propaganda used to influence people outside just Italy, but across Europe. This is not unique. The standard of old used to be Kings sponsoring bards. Both the bankers in Florence and the Church were in essence state actors. The banking families basically ran Florence.
jojobas 3y ago
It was not created as a psy-op, however it got out of obscurity as a psy-op. I like to think that without government funding, art like 20 meters of a wall covered in cardboard boxes or tomato soup cans wouldn't take off.
- tpm 3y ago
  Pop-art and similar is really a reaction to abstract expressionism and as such belongs more to postmodernism. Modernism was more or less over by that time. Van Gogh, Kandinsky, Malevich, Picasso, Mondrian, Matisse etc were very far from obscure by the time the CIA was even founded.

by toss1 3y ago

micromacrofoot 3y ago

yeah this feels like it takes the term “psy-op” to mean anything a government supports that isn’t war? by this broad of a definition ambassadors and latin languages are also psy-ops

kennywinker 3y ago
There’s a difference between generalized arts funding, and ideologically directing fund with the intent of fueling movement that align with your ideology. Imagine if the cia had a tech incubator (imagine, lol. Without googling it, I’m pretty sure they do). They could fund anything that seemed likely to succeed, but then it would just be regular business development. If they fund things that align with a specific set of beliefs and goals, that’s another beast entirely
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  but everything the government fund aligns with some set of beliefs and goals — we don't fund any schools, they have to have curriculum standards... is public education a psy-op? States don't license any doctor, they have to meet certain criteria... are those state-level psy-ops?
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    > is public education a psy-op? I mean, in a way it is. Public education in america teaches narratives of colonialism and history that are generally pro-america. Even when they touch on things critically, there is a general slant towards mythologizing and deifying. I.e. "Thomas Jefferson was a great man and founding father of our great nation. Also he owned slaves, which was bad, but it was a different time." Attempts to push a little deeper in terms of criticism are usually met with an aggressive push back (e.g. the "critical race theory" hullabaloo). > States don't license any doctor, they have to meet certain criteria The state has definitely used it's powers, tho I'm not sure if doctor licensing has been specifically used, to marginalize people with beliefs considered radical. e.g. during https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism > are those state-level psy-ops? The term psy-op is specifically about information control and messaging, etc. So I wouldn't apply to just anything that the state does to advance an ideology. But I think it applies well to arts, which is all about ideas. It doesn't apply as well as a description of the use of doctor licensing to further an ideology. For tech companies, it depends on what the tech company does, i.e. a bunch of the FUD around tiktok is about the information control it represents. I don't think psy-op is a good description of an education system with state-directed biases. Because that's more of a long-term state project, rather than a short-term targeted influencing. To me education's pro-state issues are much better described by words like "bias" or "propaganda" or "indoctrination". Probably a longer answer than you were expecting, but I really do think cia-funding art + writing is pretty clearly a psy-op. That doesn't mean the artists they funded weren't real or good. It just means their level of success was partially the result of ideologically directed funding by the cia with the goal of influencing public opinion about communism/socialism.
    - FreshStart 3y ago
      Even from a graveyard or dungheap good things can grow, aware of the past to leave behind The exceptionalism derived from accidents of history & circumstances is strange.
  - Shish2k 3y ago
    The things you’re describing are done by the government to its own citizens, theoretically for the benefit of the citizens; the things being described as psy-ops are a government controlling other countries’ citizens for the benefit of the government
    - micromacrofoot 3y ago
      arguably these things were also good for the people though? i.e., americans winning the culture war and having a higher status than the soviet union

lotux 3y ago

What was US values back then? If it was fighting USSR then it was a psy-op.

andsoitis 3y ago
Modern art extends roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s.
- saghm 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure the CIA wasn't funding art before it was founded in 1947, so I have to imagine the US values for the part of modern art history before then aren't what GP was asking about

lacy_tinpot 3y ago

I see this as no different than the Renaissance being funded by Italian bankers and the church.

nashashmi 3y ago
That is an entirely different concept. The sponsorship of art in the country is different than sponsorship of art outside the country. Secondly the sponsorship is done by private individuals instead of a government or military order. CIA cannot be operating in the US and it is a govt institution.
- jerbearito 3y ago
  It's not an entirely different concept. The comparison he replied to was about both groups funding art to advance their causes and promote their perspectives (pro-Western, pro-God, etc.). That's a perfectly acceptable comparison and it's accurate. The differences you listed are also valid.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  States weren't as rigid in the past. Those Tassis family portraits or whatever cannot be meaningfully separated into "state funded" and "privately funded" because the family's wealth was deeply tied to their relationship with various states.
- lacy_tinpot 3y ago
  The church's motivation was precisely to spread Christendom to show the sophistication of the church. So it was very much a work of propaganda used to influence people outside just Italy, but across Europe. This is not unique. The standard of old used to be Kings sponsoring bards. Both the bankers in Florence and the Church were in essence state actors. The banking families basically ran Florence.

jojobas 3y ago

It was not created as a psy-op, however it got out of obscurity as a psy-op. I like to think that without government funding, art like 20 meters of a wall covered in cardboard boxes or tomato soup cans wouldn't take off.

tpm 3y ago
Pop-art and similar is really a reaction to abstract expressionism and as such belongs more to postmodernism. Modernism was more or less over by that time. Van Gogh, Kandinsky, Malevich, Picasso, Mondrian, Matisse etc were very far from obscure by the time the CIA was even founded.