3 ms·

By "modern art" they mean things like abstract expressionism.

ivan_gammel 1mo ago
Reduction of modern art to abstract expressionism is the same as reduction of cinema to MCU. Acceptable for a talk over couple beers, disqualifying factor for pretend-to-be intellectuals, mainly because it is cherry-picking based on the scale of a scandal rather than genuine interest in the history of art.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- philipallstar 1mo ago
  No, those are not the same. You might say it's like reducing superhero movies to "superhero movies made in the last 20 years", which actually most people do, and it's mostly understandable. Maybe those people wouldn't have what you'd call a "genuine interest in the superhero genre" but who cares? They weren't trying to demonstrate that, and what they were saying didn't require it.
  - ivan_gammel 1mo ago
    Most of the significant works of modern art were created before CIA was founded. The title is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. But "who cares" question points to something different: indeed, who cares if the knowledge acquired by the reader will be shallow and misleading? I do care. You may not. It's a matter of attitude. People are free to choose their chewing gum, right?
    - philipallstar 1mo ago
      Yes, perhaps you're right. I think people think of "banana nailed to wall" as the outcome of modern art, and that I think is more recent. But there are works older than the CIA that look younger than it, such as Kandinski, and perhaps that is indeed misleading.
dgellow 1mo ago
Which is even more absurd
- coldtea 1mo ago
  Not really absurd. That scene nearly dominated the art scene in the post war / cold war period, and for layman casual uses (and even for several critic treatments), it was almost synonymous with modern fine art in general (not "modernist" art, modern, as in contemporary).
  - ivan_gammel 1mo ago
    The only thing where "American" art scene dominated was the auction space. And significant part of it was imported from Europe (no tariffs applied) and continued to feed from there later. The rest of the world lived it's own life.
    - coldtea 1mo ago
      It's not just about the "American art scene". Western European artists in the same "genre" also got funded in similar ways. >The rest of the world lived it's own life. Perhaps, but this is not about what happened in Mongolian or Indonesian art scenes, but mostly focused on the cold war theater of US and Western Europe.
      - ivan_gammel 1mo ago
        First of all, what "genre"? I assume, abstract expressionism? Second, why would anyone fund specifically abstract expressionism and for what purpose given the diversity of art movements of that time? Third, what do you even know about contemporary art of Europe to make such bold claims?
        coldtea 1mo ago
        >I assume, abstract expressionism? Yes, abstract expressionism, but also other mostly US-led scenes like pop art to a degree. >Second, why would anyone fund specifically abstract expressionism and for what purpose given the diversity of art movements of that time? It had a US lead at the time, easier to explain US institutions promoting and do cross-continent exchanges and sponsorships, and conveniently apolitical compared to other art movements of the time. >Third, what do you even know about contemporary art of Europe to make such bold claims? Quite a lot, being from here, and familiar with both their history and the relevant literature. A hardly a bold claim at all, it has been studied and reported in books such as "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters" (The New Press), "How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War" (University of Chicago Press), "Pollock and After: The Critical Debate" (Harper Collins) and others, and of course the topic of TFA. Your opposite claim would be the bold one.
grey-area 1mo ago
That is not Modern art but an offshoot of it, like postmodern and pop art.

Reduction of modern art to abstract expressionism is the same as reduction of cinema to MCU. Acceptable for a talk over couple beers, disqualifying factor for pretend-to-be intellectuals, mainly because it is cherry-picking based on the scale of a scandal rather than genuine interest in the history of art.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
philipallstar 1mo ago
No, those are not the same. You might say it's like reducing superhero movies to "superhero movies made in the last 20 years", which actually most people do, and it's mostly understandable. Maybe those people wouldn't have what you'd call a "genuine interest in the superhero genre" but who cares? They weren't trying to demonstrate that, and what they were saying didn't require it.
- ivan_gammel 1mo ago
  Most of the significant works of modern art were created before CIA was founded. The title is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. But "who cares" question points to something different: indeed, who cares if the knowledge acquired by the reader will be shallow and misleading? I do care. You may not. It's a matter of attitude. People are free to choose their chewing gum, right?
  - philipallstar 1mo ago
    Yes, perhaps you're right. I think people think of "banana nailed to wall" as the outcome of modern art, and that I think is more recent. But there are works older than the CIA that look younger than it, such as Kandinski, and perhaps that is indeed misleading.

dgellow 1mo ago

Which is even more absurd

coldtea 1mo ago
Not really absurd. That scene nearly dominated the art scene in the post war / cold war period, and for layman casual uses (and even for several critic treatments), it was almost synonymous with modern fine art in general (not "modernist" art, modern, as in contemporary).
- ivan_gammel 1mo ago
  The only thing where "American" art scene dominated was the auction space. And significant part of it was imported from Europe (no tariffs applied) and continued to feed from there later. The rest of the world lived it's own life.
  - coldtea 1mo ago
    It's not just about the "American art scene". Western European artists in the same "genre" also got funded in similar ways. >The rest of the world lived it's own life. Perhaps, but this is not about what happened in Mongolian or Indonesian art scenes, but mostly focused on the cold war theater of US and Western Europe.
    - ivan_gammel 1mo ago
      First of all, what "genre"? I assume, abstract expressionism? Second, why would anyone fund specifically abstract expressionism and for what purpose given the diversity of art movements of that time? Third, what do you even know about contemporary art of Europe to make such bold claims?
      - coldtea 1mo ago
        >I assume, abstract expressionism? Yes, abstract expressionism, but also other mostly US-led scenes like pop art to a degree. >Second, why would anyone fund specifically abstract expressionism and for what purpose given the diversity of art movements of that time? It had a US lead at the time, easier to explain US institutions promoting and do cross-continent exchanges and sponsorships, and conveniently apolitical compared to other art movements of the time. >Third, what do you even know about contemporary art of Europe to make such bold claims? Quite a lot, being from here, and familiar with both their history and the relevant literature. A hardly a bold claim at all, it has been studied and reported in books such as "The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters" (The New Press), "How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War" (University of Chicago Press), "Pollock and After: The Critical Debate" (Harper Collins) and others, and of course the topic of TFA. Your opposite claim would be the bold one.

grey-area 1mo ago

That is not Modern art but an offshoot of it, like postmodern and pop art.