4 ms·

> CIA funding helped keep Abstract Expressionist artists like Jackson Pollock afloat No. I swear CIA exploits go through so many games of telephone, that real

> CIA funding helped keep Abstract Expressionist artists like Jackson Pollock afloat No. I swear CIA exploits go through so many games of telephone, that reality is whatever people want by the end. The CIA was involved in including artists like Pollock in the 60s in the MoMA, by then he was well established. The aim of the CIA was to use american art in juxtaposition to USSR propaganda. Freedom and individualism vs the boring state propaganda of russian workers that people saw leave the iron curtain. This would be similar to now a days helping american movies get through Chinese censors or to win the Cannes award to showcase how good hollywood and america is. You still need to make the 200 million blockbuster first before the CIA uses their influence. The myth also perpetuates the idea that modern and contemporary art is basically worthless and that its only valuable because of psyop campaigns from "them" (make it the cia, rich money laundering, sometimes weird antisemetic things take your pick), when in reality Pollock and Rothko were incredibly talented artists and their art has endured well after the CIA ended its operation

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
coliveira 2mo ago
The art may have been created independently, but rich money laundering is the main reason why that art is considered valuable. Remember that this is a movement created in NYC, where they perfected the connection between strange new art forms and billionaire collections of paintings valued into the several million dollars.
- Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
  > The art may have been created independently, but rich money laundering is the main reason why that art is considered valuable. Again, no. The art is valuable because of many compounding reasons. The interest of rich families, like Guggenheim in New York, creating the modern system of galleries and museums certainly affected the price. But the interest in art of women like Peggy Guggenheim was genuine. She staked huge amount of money in rescuing art from europe during the 30s and 40s for example. That was not a money making scheme, they lost millions on it. Modern schemes to stake value in art have more to do with Freeports and keeping valuable art outside of taxing jurisdiction. Specially in liquid markets that can be sold in auction and generate cash when needed. Other schemes are gallery or collectors who have a huge amount of work by one artist and then inflate the price in auction, which is the only visible price marker, to inflate their own collection. There is a famous Warhol collector, who has a shit ton of stuff and will overpay in auction to then sell his own collection privately for the inflated auction price. Art is much more of a taste signifier than a tax or investment opportunity. There are obviously no downsides for rich people to sell overpriced assets to each other, but the truth is that people will want a Caravaggio or a Rothko in their house and will pay millions for it. With no intention to ever sell them and paying sticker price so no tax breaks at all.
  - coliveira 2mo ago
    You're just confirming it.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

coliveira 2mo ago

The art may have been created independently, but rich money laundering is the main reason why that art is considered valuable. Remember that this is a movement created in NYC, where they perfected the connection between strange new art forms and billionaire collections of paintings valued into the several million dollars.

Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
> The art may have been created independently, but rich money laundering is the main reason why that art is considered valuable. Again, no. The art is valuable because of many compounding reasons. The interest of rich families, like Guggenheim in New York, creating the modern system of galleries and museums certainly affected the price. But the interest in art of women like Peggy Guggenheim was genuine. She staked huge amount of money in rescuing art from europe during the 30s and 40s for example. That was not a money making scheme, they lost millions on it. Modern schemes to stake value in art have more to do with Freeports and keeping valuable art outside of taxing jurisdiction. Specially in liquid markets that can be sold in auction and generate cash when needed. Other schemes are gallery or collectors who have a huge amount of work by one artist and then inflate the price in auction, which is the only visible price marker, to inflate their own collection. There is a famous Warhol collector, who has a shit ton of stuff and will overpay in auction to then sell his own collection privately for the inflated auction price. Art is much more of a taste signifier than a tax or investment opportunity. There are obviously no downsides for rich people to sell overpriced assets to each other, but the truth is that people will want a Caravaggio or a Rothko in their house and will pay millions for it. With no intention to ever sell them and paying sticker price so no tax breaks at all.
- coliveira 2mo ago
  You're just confirming it.