5 ms·
You are correct in the sense that CIA was absolutely using art as a propoganda tool and highlighting how US has such a strong artistic foundation. But that does
by altmanaltman 2mo ago
You are correct in the sense that CIA was absolutely using art as a propoganda tool and highlighting how US has such a strong artistic foundation. But that doesn't mean they were personally financially keeping Pollock afloat because it somewhat implies that Pollock is a product of CIA funding when in reality, CIA used Pollock's work as an asset in their cold war.
- redsocksfan45 2mo ago[dead]
- throwitaway___ 2mo agoYes, in a similar way to how RATM’s music was used in Guantanamo.
- thisislife2 2mo agoWe can never be sure now can we? I mean, there are great artists who aren't famous and struggle and remain unknown, and then there are artists (talented or otherwise) who either know (or have backers that know) how to play the game to earn fame and / or make a good living. Talented or not, would he have been famous and successful without the CIA propaganda? I remember reading about some famous painter who used to make his intern help him with client commissioned works, but when the clients themselves came to review it, he would make sure they never saw the interns and would pretend to have painted the whole thing himself.
- altmanaltman 2mo agoYes, of course we can never be sure, that's why we cannot say CIA bankrolled Pollock since for that we need to be sure of what happened. We also cannot ignore his actual art work and personality regardless of the "he only famous cuz cia" thesis.