Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)(daily.jstor.org)
daily.jstor.org
Was modern art a CIA psy-op? (2020)
https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/
341 comments
Some people have reported CIA involvement in the Iowa Writers' Workshop, which had a great deal of influence on the direction that literary fiction took in post-WWII America. I'm inclined to believe that such projects were likely the playthings of a few dilettantes in high places--spymasters with subscriptions to Commentary and Partisan Review--rather than a serious attempt at stifling dissent, or discrediting socialism, or cultivating soft power, or whatever.
https://www.openculture.com/2018/12/cia-helped-shaped-americ...
https://www.openculture.com/2018/12/cia-helped-shaped-americ...
Did you read the JSTOR piece? The Partisan Review was funded by the CIA. They weren't reading it. They were writing it.
Well with the kind money that agency has, they can buy the whole world several times over. Amazon is good example. Just give them a gov contract, and all the sudden company don't have to be so profitable in their daily business anymore. And guess who will Amazon beholden to? their day to day customers whoever is giving the big contract?
^ this guy moderates
Did you ever posted how exactly do you find a similar posts despite them having a very different URIs?
Did you ever posted how exactly do you find a similar posts despite them having a very different URIs?
Yup - lots of links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35668525
HN search is actually very good. You can even use Google for that:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cia+%22modern+art%22+site%3A...
https://www.google.com/search?q=cia+%22modern+art%22+site%3A...
The answer is: sort of, but not really. Government funding was used to promote American art internationally for the purposes of prestige and cultural power, but the movements themselves were not created by any institutions.
This piece offers a limited perspective on what happened. There was quite a lot more than you can read about from other sources, such as this. [1] It wasn't just funding. The CIA setup an entire propaganda network, the 'Propaganda Assets Inventory', "which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organizations."
The CIA was directly reciting stories on an international global level, was ensuring that only positive critiques were widely scene, and much more. They also ensured the funds necessary to keep spreading the art always were readily available, but that was almost inconsequential in contrast to their other interventions. Incidentally the CIA was also doing much of this behind the backs of Congress who were ostensibly opposed to such a scale of propaganda, back in the day.
---
"We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had, and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War.
"It was very difficult to get Congress to go along with some of the things we wanted to do - send art abroad, send symphonies abroad, publish magazines abroad. That's one of the reasons it had to be done covertly. It had to be a secret. In order to encourage openness we had to be secret."
-- Tom Braden, Head of CIA International Organizations Division [at the time when this was happening]
[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...
The CIA was directly reciting stories on an international global level, was ensuring that only positive critiques were widely scene, and much more. They also ensured the funds necessary to keep spreading the art always were readily available, but that was almost inconsequential in contrast to their other interventions. Incidentally the CIA was also doing much of this behind the backs of Congress who were ostensibly opposed to such a scale of propaganda, back in the day.
---
"We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had, and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War.
"It was very difficult to get Congress to go along with some of the things we wanted to do - send art abroad, send symphonies abroad, publish magazines abroad. That's one of the reasons it had to be done covertly. It had to be a secret. In order to encourage openness we had to be secret."
-- Tom Braden, Head of CIA International Organizations Division [at the time when this was happening]
[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...
This is very weird once you realize the concerns of real censors in the Soviet Union and USA were very similar - they usually cared about not depicting authority figures in a negative light as well as depicting criminals positively - as well as your typical prudish and puritanical concerns.
Splashes of colors and abstract geometrical shapes open to interpretation is about as far from political dissent and commentary as you can get.
Splashes of colors and abstract geometrical shapes open to interpretation is about as far from political dissent and commentary as you can get.
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.
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.
I see this as no different than the Renaissance being funded by Italian bankers and the church.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
> 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
> 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.
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
> 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.
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.
What was US values back then? If it was fighting USSR then it was a psy-op.
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.
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.
Van Gogh, Kandinsky, Malevich, Picasso, Mondrian, Matisse etc were very far from obscure by the time the CIA was even founded.
People move in the direction the money is flowing from. You can basically dictate what gets produced by directing money, so it's not just promoting.
Jazz too!
The CIA might have promoted jazz, but the precursor to the DEA handcuffed Billie Holliday to a bed and withheld her methadone until she died:
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/how-billie-holiday-was-t...
> When congressmen expressed worry about [Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics]’s tactics, he assured them his crackdown would affect not “the good musicians, but the jazz type.”
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/how-billie-holiday-was-t...
> When congressmen expressed worry about [Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics]’s tactics, he assured them his crackdown would affect not “the good musicians, but the jazz type.”
Jazz bad, eh? It's funny how they (the CIA?) later had a jazz broadcast at Radio Free Europe, maybe to destabilize communist Eastern Europe? Which eventually, they did. Eveyone in their 20s and their neighbour in EE wanted blue jeans and Coca Cola, the militia (commie police) was going after youths to cut their hair short and used razor blades on their contraband blue jeans. Roughly the same rethoric is now used by Russia against LGBT+ and leaders like Orban and Erdogan are keen to adopt it. Also the far right types.
That's an interesting way to say she drank and doped herself to liver cirrhosis and heart failure.
Makes sense. And makes sense this plays on HN. "Art is a joke" plays well with engineer types. Scared of what you don't understand?
Scared?
Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? No need to invent weird reasons for this.
Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? No need to invent weird reasons for this.
> Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire?
It kinda is. In the sense that no one is confused if you say you do not Understand the 400th Marvel movie without seeing the previous ones, but art, which largely exists as a conversation with the movements that happened before it, is somehow expected to be understood without context. And mocked if not easily digestible.
It is why artists like Banksy, who in my opinion offer little to nothing, cause a big stir. You do not need to understand what was happening in the art world in the 2000s to get Banksy, a instagram photo does all the work you need.
The Great Wave off Kanagawa is now considered a japanese masterpiece, but in reality is heavily influenced by Dutch landscapes and Japan at the time considered it almost foreign art. As if some european now did anime. The conversation and circumstance of that print gives it a lot of nuance, and makes it infinitely more interesting than just the wave and Fuji in the background. Similarly Pollock, as pretentious as he was, lived in an interesting time when even math and physics where shaking their conceptual underpinnings. The time they lived in was a mess, that experience, put to canvas as a rejection of Easel and figurative painting and making the process and important part of the actual finished product is interesting almost in itself, beyond the painting.
Think how many artists now show "behind the scenes" of their work, bringing people closer to the work. From Guillermo del Toro showing his monsters, to actors doing live chats, to artists publishing their doodles and sketches. Pollocks work was an attempt to merge that with the piece itself, make the action of painting it as obvious as possible, compared to art movements like the European French Academy that would knock you points if the brush strokes where visible. Their attempt at perfet painting, make the artist invisible and the subjects "greater than men", all angels and stuff is almost diametrically opposed to Pollock, that wants you to almost see where he tripped, where he was soft and where he just slammed the brush.
Sorry for the rant, just think that it is such a shame, with how interesting art can be that people reject it out of, what looks to me, just not putting the minimum amount of effort to learn about it.
It kinda is. In the sense that no one is confused if you say you do not Understand the 400th Marvel movie without seeing the previous ones, but art, which largely exists as a conversation with the movements that happened before it, is somehow expected to be understood without context. And mocked if not easily digestible.
It is why artists like Banksy, who in my opinion offer little to nothing, cause a big stir. You do not need to understand what was happening in the art world in the 2000s to get Banksy, a instagram photo does all the work you need.
The Great Wave off Kanagawa is now considered a japanese masterpiece, but in reality is heavily influenced by Dutch landscapes and Japan at the time considered it almost foreign art. As if some european now did anime. The conversation and circumstance of that print gives it a lot of nuance, and makes it infinitely more interesting than just the wave and Fuji in the background. Similarly Pollock, as pretentious as he was, lived in an interesting time when even math and physics where shaking their conceptual underpinnings. The time they lived in was a mess, that experience, put to canvas as a rejection of Easel and figurative painting and making the process and important part of the actual finished product is interesting almost in itself, beyond the painting.
Think how many artists now show "behind the scenes" of their work, bringing people closer to the work. From Guillermo del Toro showing his monsters, to actors doing live chats, to artists publishing their doodles and sketches. Pollocks work was an attempt to merge that with the piece itself, make the action of painting it as obvious as possible, compared to art movements like the European French Academy that would knock you points if the brush strokes where visible. Their attempt at perfet painting, make the artist invisible and the subjects "greater than men", all angels and stuff is almost diametrically opposed to Pollock, that wants you to almost see where he tripped, where he was soft and where he just slammed the brush.
Sorry for the rant, just think that it is such a shame, with how interesting art can be that people reject it out of, what looks to me, just not putting the minimum amount of effort to learn about it.
Found this interesting:
> The Great Wave off Kanagawa is now considered a japanese masterpiece, but in reality is heavily influenced by Dutch landscapes and Japan at the time considered it almost foreign art. As if some european now did anime.
A lot of great things seem to happen this way. Not being so cultured, I think of food. Whether katsu (Portuguese), massaman curry (Persian), pav bhaji (Portuguese again), guilty American pleasures like General Tso's (Taiping-era Chinese refugees), or your favorite Vietnamese patisserie (out-French the French), these collisions seem to produce great things.
> The Great Wave off Kanagawa is now considered a japanese masterpiece, but in reality is heavily influenced by Dutch landscapes and Japan at the time considered it almost foreign art. As if some european now did anime.
A lot of great things seem to happen this way. Not being so cultured, I think of food. Whether katsu (Portuguese), massaman curry (Persian), pav bhaji (Portuguese again), guilty American pleasures like General Tso's (Taiping-era Chinese refugees), or your favorite Vietnamese patisserie (out-French the French), these collisions seem to produce great things.
100%.
The entire industry of japanese bakery happened almost by accident. After WW2 America forced Japan to buy its exports and one of the things america had loads of was Wheat. Well japan already had rice as its staple food so what where they gonna do with this wheat?
They made tons of flour and made loads of baked goods, that are incredible nowadays. (Its a country with sweet tooth and it shows).
Another brilliant thing they did was electrocute the bread and make Panko, which is crispier and healthier than normal breadcrumbs. Something europeans hadn't thought off cause we made bread the same way for a thousand years.
The entire industry of japanese bakery happened almost by accident. After WW2 America forced Japan to buy its exports and one of the things america had loads of was Wheat. Well japan already had rice as its staple food so what where they gonna do with this wheat?
They made tons of flour and made loads of baked goods, that are incredible nowadays. (Its a country with sweet tooth and it shows).
Another brilliant thing they did was electrocute the bread and make Panko, which is crispier and healthier than normal breadcrumbs. Something europeans hadn't thought off cause we made bread the same way for a thousand years.
> electrocute the bread and make Panko
The Germans are kicking themselves. "Use electrocution to make schnitzel! Why didn't we think of that?!"
The Germans are kicking themselves. "Use electrocution to make schnitzel! Why didn't we think of that?!"
I was actually just in a museum, and thinking about this attitude, that the most important thing is that "art is a conversation", is what kills an art form. Thinking the important thing is "the conversation" is the sign that an art form has taken a turn for the hermetic, that it's insiders making art for other insiders, and is headed for cultural irrelevancy. Art requires some context to fully appreciate, but when the context is an insider's list of what's important then the art form has just died. Even without context, you can get something out of looking at Michaelangelo's Pieta, and the cultural context to appreciate it is available to broad audience.
An interesting contrast is movies, which so far have not taken that hermetic turn to the same extent. You look at a list of "the hundred greatest movies of all time", and basically 90% of them can be appreciated by anyone with the attention span. You don't need to go to college (or be Italian) to appreciate "The Bicycle Thieves", let alone be an expert on movie history.
Once an art form takes that hermetic turn, then everything becomes a game of relying on what experts say and brand management. That's why comic books are trash and Roy Lichtenstein panels sell for millions.
An interesting contrast is movies, which so far have not taken that hermetic turn to the same extent. You look at a list of "the hundred greatest movies of all time", and basically 90% of them can be appreciated by anyone with the attention span. You don't need to go to college (or be Italian) to appreciate "The Bicycle Thieves", let alone be an expert on movie history.
Once an art form takes that hermetic turn, then everything becomes a game of relying on what experts say and brand management. That's why comic books are trash and Roy Lichtenstein panels sell for millions.
Even Renaissance art and all the periods descended from that was a conversation that runs right into Expressionism and Modern Art.
> is what kills an art form.
This is how art has always worked though? The humanism of the renaissance is a direct conversation with the christian art of decades prior. When paint became cheaper and non kings could get portraits, rich people got still lifes to show they had fresh fruit and stuff other's couldn't. Almost every art movement can be traced directly to the people, the time, the wealth or the previous art movement. This is not a modern art problem.
> Even without context, you can get something out of looking at Michaelangelo's Pieta
I have had a panic attack in front of a Rothko. Even without context about him selling those paintings to the Tate before committing suicide the emotion on them is insane and I say this as someone who spent years mocking Rothko as a dumb rich person experiment of how much BS sothebys and christies can sell.
> which so far have not taken that hermetic turn to the same extent.
I think this is incredibly easy to refute, considering the amount of movies related to making movies. Due to the specialisation from capitalism, now the experts in making movies, only know how to make movies and go further and further into making movies like The Fablemans about their own industry. (This is not a one off; once upon a time in hollywood, a star is born, the artist, hugo, hail Cesar, tropic thunder...) They are even making movies about focus groups like Air about how they managed to make people design by comittee the greatest basketball shoe ever.
Their viability as comercial products, focus testing, and appreciability with little to no movie experience is hurting the art, not enhancing it. Movies are dumbed down nowadays because the aim is having as many people as possible understand them. Movies where metaphor is heavily used are usually not blockbusters. See Anihillation, a great lovecraftian horror dealing with cancer, change, loss. And whose entire conversation online was about "aliens" despite the movie being super in your face about what it was really about.
> then everything becomes a game of relying on what experts say
You are allowed to like or dislike "high" art without expert opinions. A lot fo it isn't that high anyway. I love conceptual art, absolutely love it. But it also takes seconds to make. I think the piece Perfect Lovers which is just two wall clocks next to each other is brilliant, but I see why many don't like it. (The piece was made after the artist found out his bf had AIDS and the piece is just two clocks ticking away, knowing the battery of one will run out sooner than the other, and at some point you have one clock ticking and the other stopped before both run out and they replace the bateries).
This is how art has always worked though? The humanism of the renaissance is a direct conversation with the christian art of decades prior. When paint became cheaper and non kings could get portraits, rich people got still lifes to show they had fresh fruit and stuff other's couldn't. Almost every art movement can be traced directly to the people, the time, the wealth or the previous art movement. This is not a modern art problem.
> Even without context, you can get something out of looking at Michaelangelo's Pieta
I have had a panic attack in front of a Rothko. Even without context about him selling those paintings to the Tate before committing suicide the emotion on them is insane and I say this as someone who spent years mocking Rothko as a dumb rich person experiment of how much BS sothebys and christies can sell.
> which so far have not taken that hermetic turn to the same extent.
I think this is incredibly easy to refute, considering the amount of movies related to making movies. Due to the specialisation from capitalism, now the experts in making movies, only know how to make movies and go further and further into making movies like The Fablemans about their own industry. (This is not a one off; once upon a time in hollywood, a star is born, the artist, hugo, hail Cesar, tropic thunder...) They are even making movies about focus groups like Air about how they managed to make people design by comittee the greatest basketball shoe ever.
Their viability as comercial products, focus testing, and appreciability with little to no movie experience is hurting the art, not enhancing it. Movies are dumbed down nowadays because the aim is having as many people as possible understand them. Movies where metaphor is heavily used are usually not blockbusters. See Anihillation, a great lovecraftian horror dealing with cancer, change, loss. And whose entire conversation online was about "aliens" despite the movie being super in your face about what it was really about.
> then everything becomes a game of relying on what experts say
You are allowed to like or dislike "high" art without expert opinions. A lot fo it isn't that high anyway. I love conceptual art, absolutely love it. But it also takes seconds to make. I think the piece Perfect Lovers which is just two wall clocks next to each other is brilliant, but I see why many don't like it. (The piece was made after the artist found out his bf had AIDS and the piece is just two clocks ticking away, knowing the battery of one will run out sooner than the other, and at some point you have one clock ticking and the other stopped before both run out and they replace the bateries).
Ignore the hype and go see it in person. Not Pollock if you feel it's not your thing, go see the Dutch masters or the famous Italian painters if you will. If you don't feel it moves you, then it might not be for you, but if you do, try to imagine someone is feeling the same seeing a Pollock (or Yves Klein, Rothko, etc.).
I used to think I liked a lot of art that on deeper reflection I’ve realized isn’t good. It was just me experiencing social psychology.
This is such a common human phenomenon that there’s a fable about it: the emperor who wears no clothes.
People will mercilessly ridicule the kid who says the emperor is naked. There is a bit of that type of ridicule in this thread. It’s silly. All reasonable people will agree that while you may be able to call anything art, not everything can be good art. Only an occasional isolated snowshovel or urinal (or 3 as it were) can be art, and only in the ironic it’s not really art but it is ha ha sense. Yet people insist that anything can be validly described as a work of art, none of it any better or worse than the rest.
Sorry, but that’s wrong, obviously so, and just deeply offensive to anyone who cares at all. It’s literally the negation of art, espoused by people who claim to love art.
This is such a common human phenomenon that there’s a fable about it: the emperor who wears no clothes.
People will mercilessly ridicule the kid who says the emperor is naked. There is a bit of that type of ridicule in this thread. It’s silly. All reasonable people will agree that while you may be able to call anything art, not everything can be good art. Only an occasional isolated snowshovel or urinal (or 3 as it were) can be art, and only in the ironic it’s not really art but it is ha ha sense. Yet people insist that anything can be validly described as a work of art, none of it any better or worse than the rest.
Sorry, but that’s wrong, obviously so, and just deeply offensive to anyone who cares at all. It’s literally the negation of art, espoused by people who claim to love art.
> It was just me experiencing social psychology.
Well, that's you. Other people have other experiences. In my case peer pressure was pretty heavily against art in pretty much any form, being from a small agricultural town, with technical background and studying and working in engineering. I was ridiculed for my interest in music and later other art forms.
In my environment there was no Pollock hype, 95% people didn't know who he is and the rest thought 'that's not art'. Yet it indeed is art, as is Duchamp's urinal, and many other creations. It might not be for you, but it is for someone. There are many art forms and artworks I don't care for, but at least I don't claim to speak for "all reasonable people" because perception and understanding is subjective. Expertise in art can give you better understanding and change your perception if you want, but ultimately there is a big share of subjectivity.
It's offensive when you claim I am not reasonable and do not care at all, but more than that, it's quite obviously completely wrong.
Well, that's you. Other people have other experiences. In my case peer pressure was pretty heavily against art in pretty much any form, being from a small agricultural town, with technical background and studying and working in engineering. I was ridiculed for my interest in music and later other art forms.
In my environment there was no Pollock hype, 95% people didn't know who he is and the rest thought 'that's not art'. Yet it indeed is art, as is Duchamp's urinal, and many other creations. It might not be for you, but it is for someone. There are many art forms and artworks I don't care for, but at least I don't claim to speak for "all reasonable people" because perception and understanding is subjective. Expertise in art can give you better understanding and change your perception if you want, but ultimately there is a big share of subjectivity.
It's offensive when you claim I am not reasonable and do not care at all, but more than that, it's quite obviously completely wrong.
Don’t take what I said personally. Many people have better taste than other people. You sound like one of the people who has better taste than I do so perhaps you’ll never have to reevaluate one of your favorites and decide they aren’t really so good. But you will be missing out on something if you don’t experience that. There is a real moment of transformation to be experienced when you see the emperor standing there naked and have to reevaluate your presuppositions. It allows you to find ever deeper levels of connection to good art. For me, this process of constantly refining my tastes and learning more about the techniques, history and economics of art all greatly increase the value of art in my life. I was exposed at a young age and was taught to appreciate Pollock and the rest. Critics and the art market are not efficient, to put it mildly.
A lot of the responses are inverting my point by assuming I don't like modern art or that I'm making a judgement on its value. What I'm pointing out is the condescending narrow-mindedness of the comment I was responding to. The commenter is seemingly unable to imagine that others could honestly not like it and is speculating instead that a psychological character flaw is their reason for not liking it.
> Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire?
I'm going to speculate OP is correct here. Engineers do get persnickety when faced with sufficient ambiguity and messy historical context. Visual arts have both, and fear of the unknown isn't at all a weird default position for humans.
I'm going to speculate OP is correct here. Engineers do get persnickety when faced with sufficient ambiguity and messy historical context. Visual arts have both, and fear of the unknown isn't at all a weird default position for humans.
Speak for yourself. I only get snickety.
Have you seen a Jackson Pollock in person? Seen the thick paint on canvas? It's magnificent without context.
Allow me to introduce to you White Painting, The inspiration for 4:33
https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.308.A-C/
https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.308.A-C/
I'm a painter/illustrator. Lots of art, especially post-abstract expressionism, is definitely a joke.
I got to see copyright discussions here on how AI can reproduce similar art works much faster than a human.
What if the definition of art is applying some paint to a canvas?
What if the definition of art is applying some paint to a canvas?
I don't understand your question.
In my experience, copyright and IP law have been leveled against me in employment contracts more than than they've ever helped me maintain a grip on my output. 'Intellectual strip mining' is a good way to put it. The definition of art hasn't protected what I do and changing it probably wouldn't affect that.
In my experience, copyright and IP law have been leveled against me in employment contracts more than than they've ever helped me maintain a grip on my output. 'Intellectual strip mining' is a good way to put it. The definition of art hasn't protected what I do and changing it probably wouldn't affect that.
How do you feel about, say, The Fountain?
A joke. And a seminal piece of art.
There is also a controversy with that piece by Duchamps; there is some evidence it was by Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.
There is also a controversy with that piece by Duchamps; there is some evidence it was by Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.
I'm not sure it follows that some here think art is a joke. The Cold War lineage of many technologies like the internet and GPS is even more direct, and people don't think those are a joke. It's just a fascinating theory.
> Scared of what you don't understand?
Oof, big flashbacks to conversations I wish I never had with essential oils advocates and religious fundamentalists.
Oof, big flashbacks to conversations I wish I never had with essential oils advocates and religious fundamentalists.
You think the human history of art is a scam? Have you considered that you don't know the first thing about art history and would have to go back to cave dwellers' paintings to even have the first idea about what art is?
I think you're making some incorrect, bold claims about art in an effort to simultaneously defend all artists and insult all engineers.
You don't need to "go back to cave dweller's paintings to even have the first idea about what art is", you just need to look at some art. Lots of art can evoke emotion in people with no background in art history, just like lots of food and drink can please people with no background in culinary history. There's a narrow subset, though, that can more or less only be appreciated by people who know the history. I don't think that subset is uniquely important. In fact, I think it belongs at the periphery of art.
An artistic subculture where the majority of attention is on works that don't do anything except deconstruct their mediums--works whose appreciation depends wholly on a socio-political understanding of the artist--is not a subculture I'm very interested in. And I don't think that makes me a dismissive, overly-analytic engineer. Quite the opposite! I think it's those who obsess over history and context instead of content that have lost themselves to analytics. Pure content-appreciation is our primitive, natural instinct.
You don't need to "go back to cave dweller's paintings to even have the first idea about what art is", you just need to look at some art. Lots of art can evoke emotion in people with no background in art history, just like lots of food and drink can please people with no background in culinary history. There's a narrow subset, though, that can more or less only be appreciated by people who know the history. I don't think that subset is uniquely important. In fact, I think it belongs at the periphery of art.
An artistic subculture where the majority of attention is on works that don't do anything except deconstruct their mediums--works whose appreciation depends wholly on a socio-political understanding of the artist--is not a subculture I'm very interested in. And I don't think that makes me a dismissive, overly-analytic engineer. Quite the opposite! I think it's those who obsess over history and context instead of content that have lost themselves to analytics. Pure content-appreciation is our primitive, natural instinct.
I think understanding "what art is" comes from the experience of creating for the sake of creation, not so much from observing what has been made. It's different from knowing the history of art, which just gives you contextual perspective. That's valuable, but like with any history, there are narratives that survive and don't, there's context that gets lost. So a kind of orthodoxy arises around how you are supposed to view art according to the imperfect historical context that survived. It's not "a scam" but there's also no immaculate history; we get what the stewards of history choose to give us, within their ability to do so.
The thing with art history is it isn't made up ex post facto.
Throughout art history, at different levels of abstraction (individuals, schools, countries, philosophies), there is a constant and real conversation going on. A big part of art history (like any history) is finding out what that was at the time. Along with analyzing things ex post facto and coming up with ideas and narratives given our knowledge of all history.
Throughout art history, at different levels of abstraction (individuals, schools, countries, philosophies), there is a constant and real conversation going on. A big part of art history (like any history) is finding out what that was at the time. Along with analyzing things ex post facto and coming up with ideas and narratives given our knowledge of all history.
There's a book on this called The Cultural Cold War[1]. I tried reading it but (embarrassingly) I don't know enough about artistic and literary figures in the mid-20th century to follow along with all the names it drops. Seemed interesting, though.
[1] https://thenewpress.com/books/cultural-cold-war
[1] https://thenewpress.com/books/cultural-cold-war
Also
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Paid-Piper-Cultural-Cold/dp/18620...
by the same author. Makes it very clear that both sides were despotic in their own ways. The USSR used brute force and intimidation. The methods used in the US were more subtle and covert, but just as ideologically - as opposed to creatively - directed.
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Paid-Piper-Cultural-Cold/dp/18620...
by the same author. Makes it very clear that both sides were despotic in their own ways. The USSR used brute force and intimidation. The methods used in the US were more subtle and covert, but just as ideologically - as opposed to creatively - directed.
> but just as ideologically - as opposed to creatively - directed
And about as bloody, too.
And about as bloody, too.
The government threw money at the arts in the mid-20th-century to show up the USSR and people are reading too much into it. If classicism had been the thing in the middle of the 20th century they would have funded that instead.
Is the popularity of reactive programming a Facebook psy-op? They certainly popularized it via React, but does that mean there was some deep agenda inside Facebook to popularize reactive programming to accomplish some mysterious occult goal? Or was it just that Facebook is big, happened to employ some good devs who liked reactive programming, and dumped a lot of money into it?
When big companies and governments throw money around they distort the market and whatever happens to be in the right place at the right time to grab that cash tends to get favored. That's usually all there is to it unless you can find concrete evidence that (for example) someone with authority in the CIA wanted to promote that specific type of art to achieve a specific societal outcome.
Is the popularity of reactive programming a Facebook psy-op? They certainly popularized it via React, but does that mean there was some deep agenda inside Facebook to popularize reactive programming to accomplish some mysterious occult goal? Or was it just that Facebook is big, happened to employ some good devs who liked reactive programming, and dumped a lot of money into it?
When big companies and governments throw money around they distort the market and whatever happens to be in the right place at the right time to grab that cash tends to get favored. That's usually all there is to it unless you can find concrete evidence that (for example) someone with authority in the CIA wanted to promote that specific type of art to achieve a specific societal outcome.
> The government threw money at the arts in the mid-20th-century to show up the USSR and people are reading too much into it. If classicism had been the thing in the middle of the 20th century they would have funded that instead.
I'm not so sure. Call it a conspiracy theory, but there is at least some evidence that modern art is a fantastic tool for money laundering. Now, this is also true of classical art and patents, but imagine if you are trying to send money with a stupid cover story. Make a piece of modern art in 15 minutes, have other person send $50,000 to "purchase" it...
I'm not so sure. Call it a conspiracy theory, but there is at least some evidence that modern art is a fantastic tool for money laundering. Now, this is also true of classical art and patents, but imagine if you are trying to send money with a stupid cover story. Make a piece of modern art in 15 minutes, have other person send $50,000 to "purchase" it...
I don't think the CIA needs to clandestinely fund an entire art movement as a cover for money laundering, though. That seems a bit outlandish.
I'm as paranoid as the next guy but in this case I think the premise that the CIA funded artistic expression as a form of propaganda in its own right makes the most sense.
I'm as paranoid as the next guy but in this case I think the premise that the CIA funded artistic expression as a form of propaganda in its own right makes the most sense.
It's more like it's one way to funnel money to an asset or network without raising suspicions.
But you're right, it was mostly about the propaganda. And not even particularly covert. The bit that did it has since been carved out into other agencies (eg National Endowment for Democracy).
But you're right, it was mostly about the propaganda. And not even particularly covert. The bit that did it has since been carved out into other agencies (eg National Endowment for Democracy).
> I don't think the CIA needs to clandestinely fund an entire art movement as a cover for money laundering, though. That seems a bit outlandish.
Besides...the CIA makes more money running illegal drugs.
Besides...the CIA makes more money running illegal drugs.
Any high priced asset that's easy to move with few questions asked is a great tool for money laundering. One of the largest tools is real estate, which may be one reason you see a lot of unoccupied houses and condos in certain expensive cities.
The art doesn't have to be modern to work this way. It just has to be fungible art with an inflated price tag on it. Any style will do.
Other popular money laundering vehicles include: "investments" in totally hollow shell companies, fake customers to shell or cutout businesses (like the car wash in Breaking Bad), manipulating penny stocks (you basically run a pump and dump against yourself using dirty money to pump and extracting clean money on the other side), cryptocurrency and related things, other big assets like airplanes and boats, etc.
The art doesn't have to be modern to work this way. It just has to be fungible art with an inflated price tag on it. Any style will do.
Other popular money laundering vehicles include: "investments" in totally hollow shell companies, fake customers to shell or cutout businesses (like the car wash in Breaking Bad), manipulating penny stocks (you basically run a pump and dump against yourself using dirty money to pump and extracting clean money on the other side), cryptocurrency and related things, other big assets like airplanes and boats, etc.
Real estate is traditionally quite difficult to move, that’s actually one of its core selling points.
And you can buy high end real estate with dirty money and then get clean money by taking loans out on the value of the property
Like NFTs, it could be money laundering, pumping, or both?
Government wasn't just throwing money at art...Could be the other way around. Back then what was stopping the CIA from covertly laundering money through art? They've cleaned money with worse.
The fact that you're calling it reactive programming, instead of MVC, shows that Facebook's psyop was at least partially successful.
WTF? It's very different from MVC.
It's not just that modern art started well before the CIA existed, but the article also conveniently forgets to mention how modern art subverted communism.
It even can't explain how "Jackson Pollock’s gestural style [...] drew an effective counterpoint to Nazi [...] oppression," because by the time Pollock got anywhere near famous, WWII was over. Perhaps that sentence doesn't even mean anything. It's just fancy words, because a counterpoint is not an opposition, but a harmonically fitting independent voice. Style over substance, as usual.
It even can't explain how "Jackson Pollock’s gestural style [...] drew an effective counterpoint to Nazi [...] oppression," because by the time Pollock got anywhere near famous, WWII was over. Perhaps that sentence doesn't even mean anything. It's just fancy words, because a counterpoint is not an opposition, but a harmonically fitting independent voice. Style over substance, as usual.
If it is generally agreed that soviets, fascists, nazis used modern art to pursue their ends (new objectivity etc) I find it implausible that US intelligence wouldn't respond in kind. Of course that doesn't mean that the manner of response detailed by this article is accurate.
The conspiratorial view is that people were numbed by meaningless abstract art when they could have been engaging with didactic social realist works that would have convinced them to become communist. Hard to falsify but I’m not sure how credible it is.
The React analogy doesn’t work, React is used because developers find it more productive to use. On the other hand people’s initial reaction to much modern art is “what the hell? you call this art?” so it is interesting to explore why it became very expensive and popular with elites despite the popular reaction.
Put another way, react would have probably gained a huge following without FB’s marketing (imagine if it was just a few hackers launching it as an open source project). Can we say that much modern art would have gained much fame if it wasn’t for certain critics promoting them or if they gained favourable attention from elites?
Put another way, react would have probably gained a huge following without FB’s marketing (imagine if it was just a few hackers launching it as an open source project). Can we say that much modern art would have gained much fame if it wasn’t for certain critics promoting them or if they gained favourable attention from elites?
I don’t think it is much to do with some nefarious plan to defeat social realism so much as they funded talented artists and talented artists happened to be bored with old forms/find them irrelevant and they wanted to experiment with something new.
They funded splashy but tame talented artists with no political leanings, and destroyed or starved artists who were more overtly political.
There was a lot more happening in art than AbEx. But only AbEx received official approval as an acceptable political metaphor for bold individualism.
Approval included canonisation by museums and galleries and think pieces by art critics.
https://www.artforum.com/print/197406/abstract-expressionism...
There was a lot more happening in art than AbEx. But only AbEx received official approval as an acceptable political metaphor for bold individualism.
Approval included canonisation by museums and galleries and think pieces by art critics.
https://www.artforum.com/print/197406/abstract-expressionism...
This seems more plausible than the more maximalist version of the claim where they were essentially shoving abstract expressionism down everyone's throats because of its uniquely counterrevolutionary nature.
> On the other hand people’s initial reaction to much modern art is “what the hell? you call this art?”
There's a lot of people who look at React and think "What the hell? You call this useable?" as well. The point of spending money on popularizing something is usually to popularize it with a specific crowd.
And if you are close to the art crowd, modern art is a) a stupid moniker, because it covers 1860-now, and b) a pretty logical evolution of what was before. You don't have to like it to understand what it's trying to do. The "what the hell" crowd is not the crowd targeted by the marketing.
There's a lot of people who look at React and think "What the hell? You call this useable?" as well. The point of spending money on popularizing something is usually to popularize it with a specific crowd.
And if you are close to the art crowd, modern art is a) a stupid moniker, because it covers 1860-now, and b) a pretty logical evolution of what was before. You don't have to like it to understand what it's trying to do. The "what the hell" crowd is not the crowd targeted by the marketing.
And also HTMX, Angular, or Vue could take over and erase React tomorrow and no one here would be especially surprised.
Is this where I put Betteridge's law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline....
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist who wrote about it in 2009, although the principle is much older.
"If the headline asks a question, try answering 'no'. Is This the True Face of Britain's Young? (Sensible reader: No.) Have We Found the Cure for AIDS? (No; or you wouldn't have put the question mark in.) Does This Map Provide the Key for Peace? (Probably not.) A headline with a question mark at the end means, in the vast majority of cases, that the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic. To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means 'don't bother reading this bit'."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline....
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist who wrote about it in 2009, although the principle is much older.
"If the headline asks a question, try answering 'no'. Is This the True Face of Britain's Young? (Sensible reader: No.) Have We Found the Cure for AIDS? (No; or you wouldn't have put the question mark in.) Does This Map Provide the Key for Peace? (Probably not.) A headline with a question mark at the end means, in the vast majority of cases, that the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic. To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means 'don't bother reading this bit'."
I came into the comments thinking about Betteridges law and hoping to see it near the top and I wasn’t disappointed.
Pretty much any article posted to HN with a “?” At the end that’s not a AskHN prefix should get that response.
Pretty much any article posted to HN with a “?” At the end that’s not a AskHN prefix should get that response.
ASK HN: Should I post an ephemeral of ideas as platitude questions to ASK HN?
I don’t know if it’s that simple.
The Nazis and USSR had eerily similar art. There’s a thesis that “totalitarian art” is a genre, if not a species, of art.
Most dictators don’t like people thinking for themselves. A bunch of pain blotches on canvas can mean “Stalin is terrible” as “Stalin is great.”
The vague “what does it mean” style of art asks the question “what does it mean?” Which is not a question dictators like having asked.
The Nazis and USSR had eerily similar art. There’s a thesis that “totalitarian art” is a genre, if not a species, of art.
Most dictators don’t like people thinking for themselves. A bunch of pain blotches on canvas can mean “Stalin is terrible” as “Stalin is great.”
The vague “what does it mean” style of art asks the question “what does it mean?” Which is not a question dictators like having asked.
It's not a mysterious occult goal. The web is now broken with JavaScript disabled, and Facebook has cemented a place in your browser to run their tracking code. It's pretty hard to believe that that was an intended consequence.
React was released back in 2012/2013. The web was already broken without JavaScript back then, and had been for quite some time. Remember jQuery? And FB placing tracking codes in cookies has nothing to do with React.
Let's see: Modern art starts somewhere around 1860 until 1970's. The term modern art was presumably first used in writing in the 1890's for French painters Coubert and Manet.The CIA was founded in 1947. Even MoMa predates the CIA by 18 years. So the answer must be no.
That's nitpicky, seeing as CIA was created as a consolidation of several preexisting organizations.
Eh, not really, seeing as those pre-existing organizations were themselves relatively recent wartime creations. The Office of Strategic Services was created in '42, the CIA in '47. "Intelligence" in the American sphere existed in an ad hoc manner up until that point - during WW1 the US mostly relied on the Brits, and the personal insights and observations of ambassadors or military attaches.
Ad hoc groups of a few dozen competent folks each could easily start up such a program.
The article mentions the Advancing American Art program. You can read more about it here: https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/hcm/7/1/article-p971_...
seems like a genius way to legitimately funnel dark funding.
you can literally invent million dollar excuses for value transfers to arbitrary individuals.
you can literally invent million dollar excuses for value transfers to arbitrary individuals.
Yep there’s a whole industry around this too, you can watch these high end art auctions live where all the people in the room “bidding” are just representing the real bidders by proxy. It can get dark pretty quickly though if you start imagining what may actually be buying.
This is the case for pretty much all auctions though. Not everyone has the ability to be physically present in the auction room.
> you can watch these
Where?
Where?
example of a previous stream https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LzwZow7U5KE
Except most of this art was legitimate capital A Art. Existing in the Art World.
Let's not dismiss all modern art as fake. As popular of a philistine take that is amongst engineer types.
Let's not dismiss all modern art as fake. As popular of a philistine take that is amongst engineer types.
Considering the story of the Glomar Explorer, its astonishing just how much can the CIA hide in plain sight.
Compared to that, astroturfing the works of a few modern artists seems trivial (and does not require the CIA or any bogeyman organization, just someone with sufficient clout in the art critic world).
Compared to that, astroturfing the works of a few modern artists seems trivial (and does not require the CIA or any bogeyman organization, just someone with sufficient clout in the art critic world).
Since spying requires inordinate amounts of untraceable funds, I wonder just how many CIA personnel have amassed huge private fortunes this way.
See also: art in embassies program
Speaking out of my ass: my understanding was that certain branches of abstract expressionism were so, essentially, but it's difficult to apply the suspicion to ALL of modern/postmodern art, considering that so much of it was developed or influenced by artistic movements outside the temporal and geographic purview of the CIA (particularly pre-WWII European (post)modern art and its influences in Asian and African forms). Also, it wouldn't be the first time influential entities boosted controversial media in a successful bid for a sort of cultural engineering. (I know what you're probably thinking, and no, I'm actually referring to, "Woodrow Wilson screening 'Birth of a Nation' at the White House.")
(I'm purposely conflating modern and postmodern art because I imagine that many who see the term "modern art" make that mistake, and because Pollock et al. kind of bridge the two in eschewing representation while still using traditional media.)
(I'm purposely conflating modern and postmodern art because I imagine that many who see the term "modern art" make that mistake, and because Pollock et al. kind of bridge the two in eschewing representation while still using traditional media.)
This is one of my favorites. Many here correctly point out that modern art was not created by the CIA and that's certainly laughable.
However, there are a lot folks here who don't seem to got the intent of this operation, and it was an operation with a goal. The goal was to subvert any trend toward political expression in art in the US as Soviet art was very political and a powerful force in shaping public opinion. We knew we couldn't control it so we ensured that it didn't happen here. Roughly speaking, of course.
However, there are a lot folks here who don't seem to got the intent of this operation, and it was an operation with a goal. The goal was to subvert any trend toward political expression in art in the US as Soviet art was very political and a powerful force in shaping public opinion. We knew we couldn't control it so we ensured that it didn't happen here. Roughly speaking, of course.
I refuse to believe that Alegria/Corporate Memphis/Globohomo art isn't a psyop to demoralize populations with how hideous it is.
Even if we knew it was, would anything change? People have built their careers on this stuff. Ten or twenty years ago I laughed at some things that are now just mainstream and normal - people do this stuff, they hire other people who do this stuff, one day you wake up and it's industry best practice and you have to fall in line.
When I first watched the movie Cube I thought the idea that people would build a deathtrap and then put people in it because they thought the incomprehensible bureaucracy they worked for wanted that was ludicrous. Now I realise that's the real horror of the film.
When I first watched the movie Cube I thought the idea that people would build a deathtrap and then put people in it because they thought the incomprehensible bureaucracy they worked for wanted that was ludicrous. Now I realise that's the real horror of the film.
I don't want the think-pieces about it to end until it's gone for good. It offends my eyes.
heh if this was true imagine the poor agents tasked with carrying it out, god what an awful job. "you want me to do what?!? I thought i was going to be behind enemy lines with a tiny camera at a fancy party like in the movies.."
Andy Warhol was absolutely sick of it, and running out of ideas, and begging to be brought back in: https://youtu.be/1MbvNXZL5f0
Or selling weapons to rebels to try to topple Socialist leaning countries in hopes of being able to then bogart their resources for private profit. Or yeah tiny spy cam in a tux.
I have had the "Emperor wears no clothes" reaction to much of so-called modern art. Much of it seemed like gaslighting or sh*t tests for snobs obsessed with class signalling and Having The Right Connections or Causes. Rather than a demonstration of any real masterful skill, rare talent or artifact of relentless practice or an eye-for-perfection, of decades-long study or trial-and-error.
I mean compare a random surviving Da Vinci against the stereotypical "Man in Box" install circa 2005 NYC (say a cheap red string tied between two posts, while the audience listens to musak -- to give a dumb exemplar of the type of thing I've heard decribed as Modern Art.)
I mean compare a random surviving Da Vinci against the stereotypical "Man in Box" install circa 2005 NYC (say a cheap red string tied between two posts, while the audience listens to musak -- to give a dumb exemplar of the type of thing I've heard decribed as Modern Art.)
Lots of children are telling the (elite) crowd the emporor is naked but they want to continue pretending so hard they wont budge.
It is a power move to go around naked pretending to wear cloths and get away with it.
The emporor in the story was fooled. The commoners played along with the emporor's cloths but they openly mock modern art.
The current situation is more of an injoke to mess with commoners.
Compare modern architecture that is nice inside but look horrible for the commoners looking at it from the outside.
It is a power move to go around naked pretending to wear cloths and get away with it.
The emporor in the story was fooled. The commoners played along with the emporor's cloths but they openly mock modern art.
The current situation is more of an injoke to mess with commoners.
Compare modern architecture that is nice inside but look horrible for the commoners looking at it from the outside.
Here are three things that well connected Old Money types like: collecting art, being on the boards of nonprofits, and serving in high-level government positions. Not surprising that a Rockefeller might do all three.
Nowadays there's bitcoin/etc, so art/collectibles as value store are taking it on the nose.
These are mere personal preferences. Any connection to a broader agenda is a conspiracy theory.
Now do Rock music https://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/...
I found this book pretty unconvincing, with way too few sources and way too many flimsy inferences.
However, there is a great book about CIA guys creeping around Laurel Canyon, called Chaos [0]. It's filled with sources, research, and mostly solid inferences.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAOS:_Charles_Manson,_the_CIA...
However, there is a great book about CIA guys creeping around Laurel Canyon, called Chaos [0]. It's filled with sources, research, and mostly solid inferences.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAOS:_Charles_Manson,_the_CIA...
Now do feminism
https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/feminist-was-spy
https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/feminist-was-spy
CIA does feminism: https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1429188218424078...
Now do news media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Cooper#Early_career
The worst/most-impressive part is how difficult it is to even raise this subject without triggering everyone's thought-terminating partisan programming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson
https://theweek.com/speedreads/689969/tucker-carlson-tried-j...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Carlson
https://theweek.com/speedreads/689969/tucker-carlson-tried-j...
I don't think I'm "triggered" when I think most of this stuff is just dumb. Like OK, Anderson Cooper was an intern at the CIA while in college. From that we're supposed to mentally jump through hundreds of hoops to get to "the CIA controls news media even though it's illegal and any patriotic employee could blow the whistle on the whole thing".
A lot of it is predicated on the "deep state" being completely evil anti-american people, which is so beyond my experience of federal law officers that it doesn't fit my world view. Look at the CIA's Bush-era legally-questionable torture program, there were tons of whistle blowers and media inquiry, it was not secret for very long at all. But somehow a clearly illegal program that controls the news media has been going undetected for decades? It's just not how the USA works.
A lot of it is predicated on the "deep state" being completely evil anti-american people, which is so beyond my experience of federal law officers that it doesn't fit my world view. Look at the CIA's Bush-era legally-questionable torture program, there were tons of whistle blowers and media inquiry, it was not secret for very long at all. But somehow a clearly illegal program that controls the news media has been going undetected for decades? It's just not how the USA works.
I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Summary: lots of accusations, no evidence, even 70 years later when we've had decades for deathbed confessions.
> we're supposed to mentally jump through hundreds of hoops
No, I don't believe anything like that. In fact I think """Theorists""" are always wrong because it is always impossible to speak to other people's intent. It's hard to even trust a person to accurately tell you their own intent. The system selects for true believers, because there is no more effective mind control than what feels like one's own decisions. I would like to unironically suggest this piece by T. Kaczynski — please don't shoot the messenger :) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-sy...
This is why there's so much overlap between the security state and the 20th Century development of advertising. Both rely on accurately predicting the public's reaction given some stimuli, then trying to inject the most effective stimuli. In advertising it's done in pursuit of profit. In statecraft it's done in pursuit of ?????. Remember that propaganda doesn't mean lies, it means idea-you-feel-compelled-to-share: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...
"[George] Creel urged [Woodrow] Wilson to create a government agency to coordinate “not propaganda as the Germans defined it, but propaganda in the true sense of the word, meaning the 'propagation of faith.'”. "Creel later published his memoirs of his service with the CPI, 'How We Advertised America', in which he wrote:
“In no degree was the Committee an agency of censorship, a machinery of concealment or repression. Its emphasis throughout was on the open and the positive. At no point did it seek or exercise authorities under those war laws that limited the freedom of speech and press. In all things, from first to last, without halt or change, it was a plain publicity proposition, a vast enterprise in salesmanship, the world's greatest adventures in advertising… We did not call it propaganda, for that word, in German hands, had come to be associated with deceit and corruption. Our effort was educational and informative throughout, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that no other argument was needed than the simple, straightforward presentation of the facts.”"
No, I don't believe anything like that. In fact I think """Theorists""" are always wrong because it is always impossible to speak to other people's intent. It's hard to even trust a person to accurately tell you their own intent. The system selects for true believers, because there is no more effective mind control than what feels like one's own decisions. I would like to unironically suggest this piece by T. Kaczynski — please don't shoot the messenger :) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-sy...
This is why there's so much overlap between the security state and the 20th Century development of advertising. Both rely on accurately predicting the public's reaction given some stimuli, then trying to inject the most effective stimuli. In advertising it's done in pursuit of profit. In statecraft it's done in pursuit of ?????. Remember that propaganda doesn't mean lies, it means idea-you-feel-compelled-to-share: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Informatio...
"[George] Creel urged [Woodrow] Wilson to create a government agency to coordinate “not propaganda as the Germans defined it, but propaganda in the true sense of the word, meaning the 'propagation of faith.'”. "Creel later published his memoirs of his service with the CPI, 'How We Advertised America', in which he wrote:
“In no degree was the Committee an agency of censorship, a machinery of concealment or repression. Its emphasis throughout was on the open and the positive. At no point did it seek or exercise authorities under those war laws that limited the freedom of speech and press. In all things, from first to last, without halt or change, it was a plain publicity proposition, a vast enterprise in salesmanship, the world's greatest adventures in advertising… We did not call it propaganda, for that word, in German hands, had come to be associated with deceit and corruption. Our effort was educational and informative throughout, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that no other argument was needed than the simple, straightforward presentation of the facts.”"
There's a long, well documented history of the CIA injecting unknowing, innocent people with various drugs for tactical and experimental reasons. That seems pretty evil and anti-American (really, anti-human)!
It’s how the dictators that spread that lie work. The CIA has definitely been responsible for coups and shit and they’re probably doing stuff in Russia and Ukraine that we won’t find out about for years, but they aren’t an evil shadowy cabal that controls everything
"look, these people are definitely responsible for coups, bringing down democratically elected governments, installing puppets, lying to the public, starting wars based on false premises, bombing thousands of innocent people. And yes, they might have flooded the streets with drugs and killed a few thousand more, but they aren’t an evil shadowy cabal that controls everything"
Being good at inciting chaos isn't the same thing as having control. The CIA has a demonstrable history of being good at the first, but much less so the second.
The most pop-culture conspiracy theories vastly overestimate the precision of the organization: they're more like painters than programmers. It's a whole lot of improv.
The most pop-culture conspiracy theories vastly overestimate the precision of the organization: they're more like painters than programmers. It's a whole lot of improv.
I think it's fair to say that if you can stage coups and install puppet governments then you have a fair amount of control.
Now do tucker Carlson. https://www.mintpressnews.com/tucker-carlson-biography-nicar...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKTFfT4sMhQ
> There's this guy from the CIA and he's creeping around Laurel Canyon
> There's this guy from the CIA and he's creeping around Laurel Canyon
Makes me look at things like Disco Demolition Night in a new light.
What makes me suspicious is that disco never "died" in europe in the same way it did in the States...
(up until recently, covers of "I Will Survive" —one of which, sadly no longer available on YouTube, was even in drag— were featured annually in russian state-channel [Россия1] New Year's programming)
(up until recently, covers of "I Will Survive" —one of which, sadly no longer available on YouTube, was even in drag— were featured annually in russian state-channel [Россия1] New Year's programming)
Disco didn't die in the states at all. It kept on going. As a mainstream genre, maybe, for a while. But it evolved into the various house and techno and the myriad of sub-genres that are still flourishing to this day.
That event always seemed so weird to me. I’m not the biggest fan of disco (some of the old and new stuff is danceable) but isn’t blowing up a crate of records similar in spirit to book burning?
The spirit was the thing was that: 1. explosions are fun, 2. this rock jock hated disco, 3. his fans and other people will pay money to go to a baseball game and see this at a time when not many people were going. It was more of a publicity stunt, than anything politically charged.
Something in the spirit of book burning today is more like banning books in public places, like schools or libraries, under penalty of prison.
Something in the spirit of book burning today is more like banning books in public places, like schools or libraries, under penalty of prison.
Or, if you consider recorded art - its creator's thoughts and feelings being shuttled into the future - as akin to that creator living on in perpetuity, perhaps it's also similar in spirit to the assassination of a "subversive."
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
This is a great place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
tldr: Jim Morrison's dad started the Vietnam War when he falsely claimed he was attacked off the coast of Vietnam by the North Vietnamese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
tldr: Jim Morrison's dad started the Vietnam War when he falsely claimed he was attacked off the coast of Vietnam by the North Vietnamese.
Not really. There was a real attack (provoked by the US) on Aug 2nd, and Johnson didn't want any evidence before escalating. Johnson even lied to Congress and the public about his plans before attacking. It's clear he would have used any excuse he could gin up.
Definitely, but it's also interesting that Jim Morrison's dad was the in charge of the ginned up operation. I don't think most people know that.
Johnson wanted to go to war, eventually some excuse would have been found.
I agree, this was less than a year after the JFK assassination and of high priority to Johnson and his "supporters".
Where are the facts that back this up? Shouldn't there be disclosed evidence by now? Wasn't the counter culture under surveillance regularly?
This is definitely a fitting conspiracy theory for our increasingly fascist times though.
This is definitely a fitting conspiracy theory for our increasingly fascist times though.
> Shouldn't there be disclosed evidence by now?
Ed was at the end of his rope, an expression he detested. “There is no rope!”, he would scream at the laughing walls, “There is only the end. No hope; no rope.”
Ed was at the end of his rope, an expression he detested. “There is no rope!”, he would scream at the laughing walls, “There is only the end. No hope; no rope.”
And The X-Files was a long ad.
This is one of my favorite rabbit holes to go down, it's nuts.
I recently came across a reference to this kind of thing going on in Europe, although it was more about controlling what music was popular based on some notion of what was 'safe' for the youth. The billionaire in question (Ukraine's second richest at one point) was a major behind-the-scenes actor in both pre- and post-2014 Ukraine, a backer of Zelensky at one point, but now safely on the official US/NATO-reviled list so we can talk about him:
> "As a Komsomol activist, Kolomoyskyi was involved in the so-called "disco movement" - an attempt by the authorities to promote an ideological safe alternative to the growing, underground, rebroadcast and performance of "Anglo-American" rock music including, in the 80s, heavy metal and punk."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi
> "As a Komsomol activist, Kolomoyskyi was involved in the so-called "disco movement" - an attempt by the authorities to promote an ideological safe alternative to the growing, underground, rebroadcast and performance of "Anglo-American" rock music including, in the 80s, heavy metal and punk."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi
That's a wildly overstated headline. Modern art goes back to the early 19th century and there were artists and patrons across the world long before the CIA. It's entirely plausible that they saw the rise of modern art as a useful vehicle to propagandize but it's ridiculous to say the entire thing was an OP.
This. Sure all three letter agencies need avenues to shuffle large somes of grey and black market cash around, art is convenient for that... Music and movies too. An extra plus for hiding messaging and all that... But I wouldn't view these operators to be as all encompassing as stories like these make them out to be... The next step is crap like "Leonardo da Vinci was actually a cia spy recruited by the freemasons", and once you go that far you're one cardboard sign and a roll of tinfoil away from an institution.
If you like this kind of question, I highly recommend the Wind of Change podcast, about whether The Scorpions song of the same name was written by the CIA. Super entertaining!
https://crooked.com/podcast-series/wind-of-change/
https://crooked.com/podcast-series/wind-of-change/
I feel about this the way I feel about most so called conspiracy theories. I'm certain intelligence agencies are involved something similar to this. It would be really surprising if they didn't avail themselves of this huge means of influence. They spend all day wondering about how to influence. But I'm more skeptical that the conspiracy theorist actually managed to catch the intelligence agency's activity in this particular case.
This is basically every sports fan theory that every game is rigged on the basis of a few point shaving scandals.
I think you got the analogy wrong. It's rather that probably some games are actually rigged but the fans are not complaining about exactly these.
If you spend any time on a sports forum like reddit, you quickly learn there are 32 teams in the NFL and 31 of them are dirty cheaters who bribe the refs.
Every game is probably exaggerated but I've watched enough sports as a kid. Even back then it was clear to me that big, especially international, events are highly orchestrated. Yes, including outcomes.
I've been watching F1 for several decades and some key races are jazzed up to the point that one must actively suspend their disbelief. Not to mention Bernie Ecclestone straight up saying who's going to be champion and who isn't ever going to be one. It's all fake, dude. Unless you really believe some countries are thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat much better at sports (and everything else) because they're just that awesome in every respect.
I've been watching F1 for several decades and some key races are jazzed up to the point that one must actively suspend their disbelief. Not to mention Bernie Ecclestone straight up saying who's going to be champion and who isn't ever going to be one. It's all fake, dude. Unless you really believe some countries are thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat much better at sports (and everything else) because they're just that awesome in every respect.
Maybe some countries are that much better at sports because they invest money into it? Facilities, medics, training, athlete development programs etc.
Yes, that's the picture they are trying to paint. Rather successfully it would seem.
Providing facilities, medics, dietitians, etc. does not hurt, of course. Makes for great PR. Having your guys in charge of testing for dope helps create the actual results, though.
That said, if you truly believe superhumans exist, that's fine too. Even if it strikes me as rather naive. It helps patriotism and whatnot. A man needs his pride
Providing facilities, medics, dietitians, etc. does not hurt, of course. Makes for great PR. Having your guys in charge of testing for dope helps create the actual results, though.
That said, if you truly believe superhumans exist, that's fine too. Even if it strikes me as rather naive. It helps patriotism and whatnot. A man needs his pride
If would be so cool if it is true! Well, is it?
In Linebarger's book Psychological Warfare, he points out that asking propaganda men (in his defense, they probably were almost all men ca. 1947, and I suspect he may even have referred to specific men, eg Edward Bernays) about their work is highly unlikely to result in an unspun answer.
(then again, consider Epimenides: Linebarger is also a propaganda man)
(then again, consider Epimenides: Linebarger is also a propaganda man)
guess you'll have to listen!
Brad Troemel covered this pretty well on patreon, here's the preview https://www.instagram.com/p/CVfvbpwAoMZ/
Modern Art was not a CIA Psy-Op, because modern art is older than the CIA. Modern art started around the 1870s and was in full swing at the start of the 20th century. The CIA was founded in 1947.
A theory I like is that "modern art" was triggered by photography making a lot of painters unemployed around the 1870s.
So some unemployed painters tried their luck painting pictures a camera couldn't make.
So some unemployed painters tried their luck painting pictures a camera couldn't make.
I wonder what this generation's modern art response to AI art will be.
Nobody is accusing them of coming up with the styles. They just found the emptiest artistic movements with the least to say and flooded them with money and positive criticism.
Wait, you mean that scene in Men In Black 3 wasn't a joke?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MbvNXZL5f0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MbvNXZL5f0
If you haven't read about MKUltra its worth a read too. Looks like the CIA helped to make LSD popular in the 60s https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret-que...
still not sure if it was related but in elementary school in the 90s I was put in a "gifted" program which involved, on at least one occasion, wearing headphones in a dimly-lit room and being tested with Zener cards. I've dug into local records and still to this day don't conclusively know what that was all about.
That was the first test. Those who responded went on to the next level, which is goat staring.
Same. I'd forgotten about it. For me this happened around 1970.
I've always wanted to pull out some Zener cards in the middle of a programming interview.
If a candidate is psychic, wouldn't that be good to know?
If a candidate is psychic, wouldn't that be good to know?
Actually... It can be a good trait for a candidate to call out obvious bullshit - for which a Zener-test is the perfect meta-test!
It also gives candidates a good story even if they don't get hired.
Amateur level.
You need to testing for Larges, not Mediums.
You need to testing for Larges, not Mediums.
ObGroan: Guh-rrrooaannn!
Bah bum hahaha thank you
> I've dug into local records and still to this day don't conclusively know what that was all about.
Do you have episodes of unexplainable lost-time? Maybe try setting up a surveillance camera at home so you can see when they activate you.
Do you have episodes of unexplainable lost-time? Maybe try setting up a surveillance camera at home so you can see when they activate you.
There's no way that would work. Any security camera that you can set up is already back-doored.
For this kind of thing, an old closed circuit analog camera with VHS tapes is best.
I've seen these programs discussed on 4chan and reddit -- try "GATE conspiracy"
I've seen those threads too, years after I made the connection myself (by playing The World Ends With You and seeing the Zener card symbols on the top screen, before I knew what they were).
some of the things listed there apply to my experience, and others don't. the whole thing leaves me with more questions than answers.
some of the things listed there apply to my experience, and others don't. the whole thing leaves me with more questions than answers.
Were you in NYC by chance?
nope—SD. but the phenomenon has been reported all over the country, as I've come to find out.
Was it part of an entry test for one of those 'genius' programs?
That was well covered in Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. At least the "make LSD popular" part.
The classic work on this is "Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond" by Lee & Shain. The Chapter "In the Beginning There Was Madness" covers the crazy era of MK-ULTRA (and the Frank Olson case, in which the CIA fed LSD to MKULTRA collaborators in the biological warfare program, where Olson worked - he then had a breakdown of some sort and wanted to quit the program and perhaps go public, so the CIA hit him in the head with a hammer and threw him out of a high-rise (probably, anyway) and called it a suicide for several decades).
https://spyscape.com/article/frank-olson-the-cias-secret-que...
https://spyscape.com/article/frank-olson-the-cias-secret-que...
Something the post-Boomer generations have been talking about more and more: the fact that the "tune in, turn on" movement wasn't coming from inside the house, so to speak. The old leftists still get very defensive of their drug overuse, in spite of the fact that their "counterculture" had set back effective policy by generations. They had ceded the field to reactionaries and identitarians (both allies of capital, of course), the effects of which we're dealing with to this day.
The American security state - Pinkerton, etc - was created to deal with labor, and it was nearly-constantly trying to end-run around democratic oversight using whatever means it could: poisoning students with military-grade chemicals, allying with Luciano, squamming loins with notorious non-state actors (including actual Nazis), hiring squadrons of prostitutes, and on occasion - maybe, possibly - making some US citizens go away more permanently. Without even mentioning its adventures in the Americas at large. It's the height of schadenfreude we're living through a golden age of conspiracism without eyeballs on the horribly, horribly real historical conspiracies, who was behind them, and who continues to be.
The American security state - Pinkerton, etc - was created to deal with labor, and it was nearly-constantly trying to end-run around democratic oversight using whatever means it could: poisoning students with military-grade chemicals, allying with Luciano, squamming loins with notorious non-state actors (including actual Nazis), hiring squadrons of prostitutes, and on occasion - maybe, possibly - making some US citizens go away more permanently. Without even mentioning its adventures in the Americas at large. It's the height of schadenfreude we're living through a golden age of conspiracism without eyeballs on the horribly, horribly real historical conspiracies, who was behind them, and who continues to be.
> “tune in, turn on”
“Turn on, tune in, drop out”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out
Just noting this because I wasn’t sure if this what was being referenced, so I looked it up . . .
“Turn on, tune in, drop out”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out
Just noting this because I wasn’t sure if this what was being referenced, so I looked it up . . .
> squamming loins
?!?! I looked it up, but there are too many definitions... https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Squam Is that a synonym for "knocking boots" ?!
?!?! I looked it up, but there are too many definitions... https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Squam Is that a synonym for "knocking boots" ?!
Whoops. I had thought it to be merely some unfortunate onomatopoeia. It's awesome that the word has so many actual meanings, if informal ones. But yes, "a thing involving 'mutual loins' that sounds like 'squam'"
My guess is that OP did indeed mean "knocking boots" as a reference to Operation Paperclip, where the US government granted amnesty to a bunch of Nazi scientists in return for pivoting their research to US national security purposes.
edit: source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
edit: source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
when I was growing up "knocking boots" meant have sex? (there was a whole rap song with that title). Which is what I assumed "squamming loins" was some british english version of.
It’s a metaphor in the same sense as “strange bedfellows.”
> very defensive of their drug overuse, in spite of the fact that their "counterculture" had set back effective policy by generations
But did people dislike the hippies because of their drug use, or did they dislike drug use because of the hippies?
But did people dislike the hippies because of their drug use, or did they dislike drug use because of the hippies?
The former, there's quite well documented pre WW2 historical evidence of writers being shocked at seeing drug abuse first hand.
I don't know a lot about Pinkertons, is there a good book or a documentary to find out more?
(Or any other "real conspiracies" for that matter.)
(Or any other "real conspiracies" for that matter.)
The Wikipedia article is a decent read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)]
And now everybody's on antidepressants.
Yes yes, it's a good thing according to good medical authority. But still, it's crassly dystopian too. Maybe we can thank "old leftist drug overuse" for normalizing us over that hump.
Yes yes, it's a good thing according to good medical authority. But still, it's crassly dystopian too. Maybe we can thank "old leftist drug overuse" for normalizing us over that hump.
Regardless of what you think of this, there is a related idea worth considering: hegemony. Whether it is organic or confected, the idea that powerful groups within societies create and export ideas to other groups in society in a way that cements their own power or breaks a competing group's.. isn't new, and is fairly clearly the case whether we look at art, or tech, or media ownership.
Central Intelligence... Agency.
Agency, as in there are hundreds of millions of third-worlders who have been conditioned to believe they have no Agency. Since grammar school.
Which the Agency itself isn't really any good at (at least since the 50's), but those in power locally are more than happy to exploit the boogeyman and make it part of the curricula.
Agency, as in there are hundreds of millions of third-worlders who have been conditioned to believe they have no Agency. Since grammar school.
Which the Agency itself isn't really any good at (at least since the 50's), but those in power locally are more than happy to exploit the boogeyman and make it part of the curricula.
People who spend money because they have to have a hard time understanding people who spend money because they're bored.
When I studied art history in school, a major theme was that most of the artists from long ago that we have heard of did some kind of work for whoever was in power, to make money, to create their masterpieces.
Let’s not pretend the CIA is particularly good at anything other than overthrowing Latin American democracies.
Let’s not pretend the CIA is particularly good at anything other than overthrowing Latin American democracies.
They also were good at meddling in Australian politics, including overthrowing one of our best Prime Ministers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_t...
Dumb question: what counts as modern art? Is this a particular style, as opposed to post modernism? What defines. And who are the important artists?
Wikipedia suggests Modern begins in the 1860s; the parent post is absolutely correct that it’s more the patronage rather than the artists or styles that drive classification in this case. Lots of things are disrupting the patronage of art around this time, especially photography, and changing markets for art result in very different kinds of art being produced.
I cannot comment as to whether the CIA is particularly good or bad at anything, but what I will say is that they are particularly effective at guiding domestic policy and operations.
We can see what our governments are encouraging towards other countries quite easily and openly today. For example in the UK you can see organisations like the British Council (The United Kingdom's international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities): https://www.britishcouncil.org/arts/news
and towards China in particular: https://chinanow.britishcouncil.cn/
Some on the left (and right I imagine) say these are an example of neo-colonialist neo-liberalist ideas and that does seem as conspiracyish as this article but if you imagine in 50 years time a politics article looking at the arts right now, then an archived series of these projects from our governments international arts organisations might well be included!
and towards China in particular: https://chinanow.britishcouncil.cn/
Some on the left (and right I imagine) say these are an example of neo-colonialist neo-liberalist ideas and that does seem as conspiracyish as this article but if you imagine in 50 years time a politics article looking at the arts right now, then an archived series of these projects from our governments international arts organisations might well be included!
Patronage, fine art, and propaganda have always been intertwined. It is so fundamental to the subject that it's in the textbooks. This article could be pulled from the course text for intro to modern art.
Hollywood? Most recent one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_(2023_film)
Boy am I glad that we are saying "was" now about that nonsense
Picasso painted Man in a Beret when he was 14 years old. His art became "nonsense" because realism was boring for him.
Lots of programmers get bored of writing simple line-of-business code and find ways to make it more interesting for themselves. It doesn't generally lead to a program that's better for the end user though.
[deleted]
Modernism is ubiquitous. Likely your furniture, computers, cars, and home architecture are heavily modernist unless you explicitly seek out classical stuff.
Modernism is obsessed with truth and optimization, evolving toward an apex. Computing technology as a whole is modernist. Apple hardware design is a glaring example of a modernist pursuit (especially under Ive).
Modernism is obsessed with truth and optimization, evolving toward an apex. Computing technology as a whole is modernist. Apple hardware design is a glaring example of a modernist pursuit (especially under Ive).
And the most modernist form of art now is AI generated art. Pure form and aesthetic, but no real meaning or intent, like a face in a mirror, something shaped like human meaning but utterly devoid of it, manufactured like so much else of our reality.
Which, ironically, makes it legitimately art. It's art because it's anti-art.
Which, ironically, makes it legitimately art. It's art because it's anti-art.
That's cool. The Dadaists and some Surrealists were doing stuff like that intentionally, trying to make art devoid of an artist, or of intent.
Also the beat poets, who were trying to write intent-free stream of consciousness texts, kind of like a token-prediction engine. :)
Also the beat poets, who were trying to write intent-free stream of consciousness texts, kind of like a token-prediction engine. :)
Oh boy, any one that thinks their particular art style is "truth" has an ego problem.
You misunderstood what they said. "Modernism is obsessed with truth and optimization" does not equal "modernism is truth." They were also talking about it conceptually, not as "their" preferred art.
I didn't misunderstand. Every art form is someone's truth so it's rather superfluous to say that modernism is obsessed with it.
Is this some defect in abstract thinking? No experience with philosophy? Whatever the case it appears to be bad faith or blatant misunderstanding the basics of a well-worn topic to me especially given how you tried to reframe it as a condemnation.
You think Van Gogh and Picasso are nonsense?
Or even Mondrian
Or even Mondrian
Mondrian rules! In my youth I tiled the bathroom in my house in a Mondrian pattern. Mostly white, lowering the cost since white tiles were much cheaper than red yellow and blue.
Yes and no. On one hand, my social class and upbringing almost command that I should find beauty in Van Gogh and Picasso's works. I defer to the masters on matters I do not understand, but it's not where my personal taste and love really lie.
I actually love experimental and avant garde works but one problem is it feels like a lot of it is a bit of a dead end. Like 4’33” was an interesting idea once but there’s kind of nowhere you can take that. Once you get past the first presentation it’s not interesting to do a slight variation. Or, you know, Jackson Pollack, neat, but not like I need to see 10 more guys flinging paint at a canvas.
Have you seen Picassos or (especially) Van Goghs in person?
I have. I do a lot of traveling and inevitably people want to go to art installations and museums and I'm always fine with going. Anways, there's not a lot of legendary art pieces (that are in public places) I haven't seen in person. Not a single one of them really inspire me. I'd go so far as to say I don't really understand how art became such a huge market to begin with. I literally wouldn't pay $100 for anything other than sculptures.
I wouldn't put most of the legendary pieces on my wall unless you paid me.
edit: it always tickles me the negative reactions I get when people hear my opinion on art. Doesn't seem to matter how I phrase it, it's always offensive to someone that I can't see the undeniable beauty in popular art. Putting time and effort into something is a prerequisite for me to be in awe, but it does not automatically interest me. Many professional athletes put in far more time and effort into their craft to play a decorative game and I similarly don't care about their mastery of their strictly decorative achievements.
I wouldn't put most of the legendary pieces on my wall unless you paid me.
edit: it always tickles me the negative reactions I get when people hear my opinion on art. Doesn't seem to matter how I phrase it, it's always offensive to someone that I can't see the undeniable beauty in popular art. Putting time and effort into something is a prerequisite for me to be in awe, but it does not automatically interest me. Many professional athletes put in far more time and effort into their craft to play a decorative game and I similarly don't care about their mastery of their strictly decorative achievements.
Art is a financial instrument. The value of art is how much a wealthy person will pay for it.
That being said, there are lots of intense and pretty drawings and paintings that obviously took a lot of skill to create. No need to expect inspiration. A lot of the language around "art" is a reflection of the self-regard of the people who own it.
> edit: it always tickles me the negative reactions I get when people hear my opinion on art.
People want to fit in, it's a survival skill. Public negative opinions about Marvel movies will get you death threats and accusations of trying to destroy companies for the sake of other companies.
That being said, there are lots of intense and pretty drawings and paintings that obviously took a lot of skill to create. No need to expect inspiration. A lot of the language around "art" is a reflection of the self-regard of the people who own it.
> edit: it always tickles me the negative reactions I get when people hear my opinion on art.
People want to fit in, it's a survival skill. Public negative opinions about Marvel movies will get you death threats and accusations of trying to destroy companies for the sake of other companies.
> People want to fit in, it's a survival skill.
I think you're probably touching the root cause, but it still stands to question how exactly people feel they're more fitted by publicly disagreeing with an anonymous person on the internet. I guess it's just a learned action in meatspace that incidentally carries over to the internet where it has no benefit and only detriment? Human behavior is always interesting.
I think you're probably touching the root cause, but it still stands to question how exactly people feel they're more fitted by publicly disagreeing with an anonymous person on the internet. I guess it's just a learned action in meatspace that incidentally carries over to the internet where it has no benefit and only detriment? Human behavior is always interesting.
Fascinating! Well I hope you wind up with your own ideal number of pieces whether that be 0 or 1000 :)
I might already be there at 0, haha! I much prefer decorating my spaces with plants over art. I certainly wouldn't argue plants are objectively better than art, but for me the beauty of even the most common pothos far surpasses the majority of popular art.
I don't get houseplants. Inside they look stark, isolated, completely removed from their element. I love a good garden and outdoor flowers but houseplants seem ridiculous to me even excluding the ongoing maintenance and the inability to just leave home for a few weeks without having to setup someone to water. Why do I want to be physically tied down by my home decor? Or have the quality of my home decor dependant on the quality of my green thumb skills? Give me a Dali on the wall any day that invariably leads to a discussion on what a person sees in the scene.
I also enjoy playing with tech, which automated watering among other cool tech solutions to keeping up with indoor plants is fun for me. Always fun to hear about differing opinions and wonder about how we arrived at our opinions. I can't imagine ever caring what anyone saw in a dali. Having taken an elective art class in college I recall feeling quite uncomfortable having to listen to people who relished the opportunity to hear themselves speak on a subject that has no wrong answers.
Personally I have a hard time valuing questions that have no wrong answer. Seems like a polite ritual at best and a waste of time at worst.
Personally I have a hard time valuing questions that have no wrong answer. Seems like a polite ritual at best and a waste of time at worst.
What does Van Gogh have to do with the article? He lived in the wrong century.
I am unsure why he was brought up in this thread tbh, but it was many comments above mine
Absolutely, without exception.
Picasso was a communist and his art was representational. His form of 'modernism' has nothing to do with the kind of actual nonsense that the CIA wanted to push.
I certainly do
The contra to this nonsense was state-controlled and heavily censored - as much as I like Polish school of poster, or overall "tidyness" of communal spaces in post-communist areas, it was (to say it mildly) stifling creativity.
wasn't René Magritte and "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" long before there was a CIA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
Also Picasso was a real commie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso#Political_views - also Diego Rivera, and Frida Kahlo.
Also Picasso was a real commie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso#Political_views - also Diego Rivera, and Frida Kahlo.
Those were surrealism, cubism and muralism respectively.
The modern art they refer to in the article concerns different, post-1950 kinds...
The modern art they refer to in the article concerns different, post-1950 kinds...
Still it sounds funny that they would need to employ the CIA in order to finance the Museum of Modern art in... New York, doesn't it?
The USA had the "Congress for Cultural Freedom", the Soviet Union had it's "World Peace Council", funny kind of influence peddling.
wikipedia has a list of "Communist front organizations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communist_front_organ...
and one for "CIA front organizations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Central_Intelligence_...
And nowadays the spooks are all busy with trolling on twitter (the taxpayers money is doing some real work :-) )
The USA had the "Congress for Cultural Freedom", the Soviet Union had it's "World Peace Council", funny kind of influence peddling.
wikipedia has a list of "Communist front organizations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communist_front_organ...
and one for "CIA front organizations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Central_Intelligence_...
And nowadays the spooks are all busy with trolling on twitter (the taxpayers money is doing some real work :-) )
This went along with tons of money to left-wing anticommunist/antisoviet writers and scholars (financing a bunch of elite literary journals that no one read, but looked good enough on resumes to get people into the NYRB, Guardian, etc..) If you're on the left, but not a Leninist, don't fall for the flattery of institutions. There are people spending the integrity of naive idealists in order to advance military and strategic goals.
The IDF reads the works of Deleueze and Guattari for inspiration on how to do urban warfare. I always laugh when critical theory influenced folks try to claim they're "anti-authoritarian".
Nope, if anything is a psyop, it's fashionable nonsense. Fashionable nonsense neuters academics who would be revolutionaries and turns them into academic hipsters.
Nope, if anything is a psyop, it's fashionable nonsense. Fashionable nonsense neuters academics who would be revolutionaries and turns them into academic hipsters.
> "Soviet propaganda asserted that the United States was a “culturally barren” capitalist wasteland."
but we invented taco tuesday and family guy
but we invented taco tuesday and family guy
Don't forget Huey Lewis and the News, when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically.
Yes! On Huey Lewis and the News they seemed a little too willing to cash in on the late seventies/early eighties taste for New Wave, and the album - though it's still a smashing debut - seems a little too stark, too punk.
Their early work was a little too new wave for my taste.
And Back to the Future, arguably the greatest movie/trilogy of all time and a distinctly American epic, which also featured several Huey Lewis and the News songs.
I never saw it, I was to busy playing tennis and dining at Dorsia.
I never saw American Psycho.
Agreed. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
In '87, Huey released "Fore!", their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square": a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics; but they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends -- it's also a personal statement about the band itself.
And then we empowered companies to sue eachother over the phrase "taco Tuesdays"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/taco-tuesday-trademark-t...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/taco-tuesday-trademark-t...
Was Modern Art a CIA Psy-Op?
No, it's not. No more than other attempts, like assassinating Castro (man, that one is really a laughing stock if you read that one front to back) or their involvement in "war against drugs". Maybe they start it but had absolutely no control where it was going.
No, it's not. No more than other attempts, like assassinating Castro (man, that one is really a laughing stock if you read that one front to back) or their involvement in "war against drugs". Maybe they start it but had absolutely no control where it was going.
There are people out there who look at what you do and think it’s a CIA psy-op. Any subject matter other folks find challenging is like this.
modern art began well before the CIA
Time and Life magazines, etc.
I know they are trying to create a catchy headline but just to be 100% clear, Modernism as a movement predates the existence of the CIA by > 50 years. Modernism in music, literature, art and architecture appears around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. It went through many iterations by the mid 20th century and the birth of the CIA out of the wartime OSS in 1947.
My thoughts, too, went to Luigi Russolo and early experimental electronic music, and experimental films of the 1920s. Obviously any counterculture can still be co-opted into the mainstream. See what is happening now with various civil rights movements being worked into corporate images (and the ensuing conservative backlash).
What happens when Adorno & Horkheimer become mainstream pop icons?
What happens when Adorno & Horkheimer become mainstream pop icons?
The article is obviously about postwar art.
Yeah, which is why I qualified my post in the first sentence. Maybe they should've titled it, "Was Postwar Modern Art a CIA Psyop" but obviously that's just not as clickable.
I'm genuinely surprised that the article neglected to mention the intriguing story of Rockefeller Plaza and the artist Diego Rivera.
Rockefeller, in his ambition to elevate the visual allure of the lobby in the newly-constructed Rockefeller Center, enlisted Rivera to produce an imposing mural. The outcome was "Man At The Crossroads," an artwork of monumental scale and significance.
Rivera's work is a meticulous tapestry, deftly weaving myriad aspects of the social and scientific zeitgeist of his era. Echoes of Communism, an influence in Rivera's other works, can also be discerned here. The centerpiece of the composition features a worker, seemingly the master of the machinery surrounding him. This focal figure is presented beneath a colossal fist clutching an orb, a representation of atomic recombination and cellular division in an ongoing act of biological and chemical genesis.
Four propeller-like forms extend from the central figure towards the composition's corners, signifying light arcs emanating from large lenses that anchor the spatial edges. Rivera coined these as "elongated ellipses". They encapsulate cosmological and biological forces, such as erupting suns and cellular structures, symbolizing the revelations afforded by the telescope and the microscope.
Interwoven between these arcs are vignettes of contemporary social life. To the left, affluent society women are depicted indulging in cards and cigarettes. In stark contrast, on the right, we find Lenin amidst a diverse assembly of workers. Juxtaposed scenes of militaristic force and a Russian May Day rally laden with red flags encapsulate Rivera's contrasting societal visions – a decadent, jobless society, dispassionately observing escalating conflict, and Lenin ushering in a socialist utopia.
Classical statues tower behind the observers at the edges of the scene. The left bears an enraged Jupiter, his hand clutching a thunderbolt, severed by a lightning strike – an embodiment of the frontier of ethical evolution. Conversely, a headless seated Caesar on the right signifies the frontier of material development. These images were Rivera's symbolic defiance against superstition, advocating for the scientific mastery of nature and the overthrow of authoritarianism by the emancipated proletariat.
The mural's overt Communist themes caused a stir among certain American observers. When Rivera stood his ground against removing Lenin's depiction, Rockefeller retaliated by having the mural plastered over. Erased.
In the subsequent years, Rockefellers skill at erasing art made him a key figure in the CIA's initiative to suppress intellectual discourse within the art world. In pursuit of this endeavor, the agency orchestrated the flooding of galleries with abstract art, featuring indecipherable splashes of paint, thereby drowning out the voices of artists who dared to infuse their creations with thought-provoking messages
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_at_the_Crossroads
Rockefeller, in his ambition to elevate the visual allure of the lobby in the newly-constructed Rockefeller Center, enlisted Rivera to produce an imposing mural. The outcome was "Man At The Crossroads," an artwork of monumental scale and significance.
Rivera's work is a meticulous tapestry, deftly weaving myriad aspects of the social and scientific zeitgeist of his era. Echoes of Communism, an influence in Rivera's other works, can also be discerned here. The centerpiece of the composition features a worker, seemingly the master of the machinery surrounding him. This focal figure is presented beneath a colossal fist clutching an orb, a representation of atomic recombination and cellular division in an ongoing act of biological and chemical genesis.
Four propeller-like forms extend from the central figure towards the composition's corners, signifying light arcs emanating from large lenses that anchor the spatial edges. Rivera coined these as "elongated ellipses". They encapsulate cosmological and biological forces, such as erupting suns and cellular structures, symbolizing the revelations afforded by the telescope and the microscope.
Interwoven between these arcs are vignettes of contemporary social life. To the left, affluent society women are depicted indulging in cards and cigarettes. In stark contrast, on the right, we find Lenin amidst a diverse assembly of workers. Juxtaposed scenes of militaristic force and a Russian May Day rally laden with red flags encapsulate Rivera's contrasting societal visions – a decadent, jobless society, dispassionately observing escalating conflict, and Lenin ushering in a socialist utopia.
Classical statues tower behind the observers at the edges of the scene. The left bears an enraged Jupiter, his hand clutching a thunderbolt, severed by a lightning strike – an embodiment of the frontier of ethical evolution. Conversely, a headless seated Caesar on the right signifies the frontier of material development. These images were Rivera's symbolic defiance against superstition, advocating for the scientific mastery of nature and the overthrow of authoritarianism by the emancipated proletariat.
The mural's overt Communist themes caused a stir among certain American observers. When Rivera stood his ground against removing Lenin's depiction, Rockefeller retaliated by having the mural plastered over. Erased.
In the subsequent years, Rockefellers skill at erasing art made him a key figure in the CIA's initiative to suppress intellectual discourse within the art world. In pursuit of this endeavor, the agency orchestrated the flooding of galleries with abstract art, featuring indecipherable splashes of paint, thereby drowning out the voices of artists who dared to infuse their creations with thought-provoking messages
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_at_the_Crossroads
[deleted]
TLDR: CIA openly admits it controlled art, philosophy, scholarship, and theory to steer leftists, and along with orgs like USAID and NED openly fund such projects today. Who can guess what they do in secret.
yes
No
Back in the days of the John Birch Society people made the same claim except it was the KGB instead.
They could have been unwittingly cooperating with each other.
Do not be fooled by the article's date. It is another psyop
Ignore this guy's comment, it's obviously a psyop as well.
You're both wrong. I am here for the psyop.
Shit. Strike that from the record. How do you delete comments?
Shit. Strike that from the record. How do you delete comments?
You cannot delete anything once on the net, that was a psyop.
I cannot confirm or deny whether this comment is psy-op.
You mean a psypo.
[deleted]
As someone who blew 500k on an MFA I wish they would bring this back lmfao.
500k?? Did your tuition include cocaine?
Journalism school is $250K and only lasts 2 years. You have to filter out the plebs.
your personal information about to get added to the creepy backrooms of algolia https://news.ycombinator.com/highlights
What the hell am I looking at?! I never knew this existed! What else don't i know?
You took 8+ years to get an MFA?
Please expand on this backstory?
probably important to mention the currency in this case.
It's pretty funny this article was published on April 1st
Nothing to see here folks. Just Matrix things.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
From 45 Communist Goals, published 1958 in "The Naked Communist" and read into the Congressional Record in 1963. Worth checking out, much of it came to pass.
https://www.lib.usm.edu/legacy/spcol/exhibitions/anti-comm/a...
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
From 45 Communist Goals, published 1958 in "The Naked Communist" and read into the Congressional Record in 1963. Worth checking out, much of it came to pass.
https://www.lib.usm.edu/legacy/spcol/exhibitions/anti-comm/a...
It was published by the "Patriotic American Youth" - the youth wing of the precursor of the John Birch Society and affiliated with the (white) Citizens Council Movement, which was formed following Brown v Board of Education.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/white-citize...
https://www.lib.usm.edu/legacy/spcol/exhibitions/anti-comm/a...
https://mississippiencyclopedia.org/entries/patriotic-americ...
https://usmspecialcollections.omeka.net/exhibits/show/antico...
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/white-citize...
https://www.lib.usm.edu/legacy/spcol/exhibitions/anti-comm/a...
https://mississippiencyclopedia.org/entries/patriotic-americ...
https://usmspecialcollections.omeka.net/exhibits/show/antico...
Yeah, it's fascinating how frequently the paranoid wingnuts of the past turned out to be right. Then you have people like Aldous Huxley and things like the Jaffe memo, painting basically the same picture but from an "inside" perspective.
These wingnuts you mentioned weren't democrats or republicans - they supported George Wallace and his "American Independent Party".
I for one like having the ability to vote without paying a poll tax or taking a poll exam and drinking from any damn water fountain I wish, which are rights Segregationist White Supremacist orgs like PAY, the John Birch Society, and the Citizen Councils wanted only for White Protestant Anglo-Saxon Americans.
The fact you were able to pull up a primary document published by a movement from an era that is largely not taught in depth about is honestly very suspect, unless you are studying for a BA in American History, which I honestly doubt.
I for one like having the ability to vote without paying a poll tax or taking a poll exam and drinking from any damn water fountain I wish, which are rights Segregationist White Supremacist orgs like PAY, the John Birch Society, and the Citizen Councils wanted only for White Protestant Anglo-Saxon Americans.
The fact you were able to pull up a primary document published by a movement from an era that is largely not taught in depth about is honestly very suspect, unless you are studying for a BA in American History, which I honestly doubt.
Your comment seriously gives an impression of having been written by the CIA.
>They weren't democrats or republicans
You know, if you think the whole world is either republican or democrat and anything not coming from those affiliations is suspect, then you have limited your world view pretty drastically.
> The fact you were able to pull up a primary document published by a movement from an era that is largely not taught in depth about is honestly very suspect, unless you are studying for a BA in American History, which I honestly doubt.
This as well. You're on a "hacker" forum, it is nothing unusual that people here are interested in fringe topics and find interesting sources outside the mainstream. Trying to pry into the identity of another poster to determine if he or she has the right to say certain things is beyond creepy. Have you considered a career at the CIA or other equivalent? From your comment you seem like a good fit.
>They weren't democrats or republicans
You know, if you think the whole world is either republican or democrat and anything not coming from those affiliations is suspect, then you have limited your world view pretty drastically.
> The fact you were able to pull up a primary document published by a movement from an era that is largely not taught in depth about is honestly very suspect, unless you are studying for a BA in American History, which I honestly doubt.
This as well. You're on a "hacker" forum, it is nothing unusual that people here are interested in fringe topics and find interesting sources outside the mainstream. Trying to pry into the identity of another poster to determine if he or she has the right to say certain things is beyond creepy. Have you considered a career at the CIA or other equivalent? From your comment you seem like a good fit.
There is an increasingly intense glow on this forum, which I suppose shouldn't be surprising considering SV history: https://unherd.com/2019/04/the-secret-history-of-silicon-val...
That they were horrible people is irrelevant to the question: were they right about the "Communist goals"?
That so many of the items in this list came to pass, either completely or in part, is prima facie evidence for 1) the existence of long term social planning in the West, or 2) the ability of the Birchers to correctly extrapolate from current trends to future events.
I mean, this isn't a list of "communist goals," this is a list of what is claimed, by American right-wingers and the American government during a time of vehement anti-communist sentiment - to be "communist goals," but it reads like a right-wing American screed. The first two items imply opposition to atomic war is a communist plot. It quotes without sources. It makes claims that it doesn't back up.
I see no particular reason to take this at face value.
I see no particular reason to take this at face value.
The Birchers (and fellow travellers) were, according to Dr. Strangelove, also convinced that water fluoridation is a commie plot, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯?
It's a summary of an FBI agent's report "Naked Communism". I'm thankful they were motivated to amplify the FBI's findings because the goals are heinous. And if we all agree the goals are heinous then I don't see anything left to contend with. If we can't agree they are heinous then I guess the communist agenda is alive and well.
That the provenance proudly includes "read into the Congressional Record" (Wikipedia also mentions this) is almost all you need to know about this.
The rest can be gleaned from the Wikipedia page on the author:
> W. Cleon Skousen ... was an American conservative author with the John Birch Society and a faith-based conspiracy theorist
The rest can be gleaned from the Wikipedia page on the author:
> W. Cleon Skousen ... was an American conservative author with the John Birch Society and a faith-based conspiracy theorist
Was this then a Conspiracy to discredit another Conspiracy?
The predictive power of the Birchers suggests they were onto something.
As much as our government interferes with other countries, makes you wonder how often our country is interfered.
Yuri Bezmenov was a Soviet informant and KGB operative who defected to the United States in the early 70s who has some choice words to say on this subject, words which turned out to be more than prophetic. It is worth watching the whole interview, about 1 hour 20 minutes in which he laid out the four stages of ideological subversion” created by radical Marxists to indoctrinate and weaken nations from within.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw
For those who voted down this factual answer to the question posed by hospitalJail a link to the Wikipedia page on Bezmenov may be helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bezmenov
The talk page is interesting as well as it shows that the same sentiment which most likely led some individuals to vote down this mentioning of Bezmenov here also leads some to try to get the article on Bezmenov deleted as "Not notable" [1], attempts to link him via his "popularity among the alt-right" to hoaxes like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and insinuating mentioning Bezmenov "recklessly promotes far-right conspiracy theory" [2], calling Bezmenov and his story a "CIA fabrication" [3] and again lamenting the fact that Bezemov's [sic.] ideas of ideological subversion are often used by the Alt-Right and Anti-Communists [4], thereby attempting to not only smear Bezmenov but also to link anti-communism with "alt-right".
Yes, Bezmenov is a source often used by those who want to show examples of attempted subversion by the Soviet Union, this is why that interview I linked to is a good fit in the context of a question on foreign interference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuri_Bezmenov#Not_notable?
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuri_Bezmenov#Popularity_...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuri_Bezmenov#Possibility...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuri_Bezmenov#Conspiracy_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bezmenov
The talk page is interesting as well as it shows that the same sentiment which most likely led some individuals to vote down this mentioning of Bezmenov here also leads some to try to get the article on Bezmenov deleted as "Not notable" [1], attempts to link him via his "popularity among the alt-right" to hoaxes like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and insinuating mentioning Bezmenov "recklessly promotes far-right conspiracy theory" [2], calling Bezmenov and his story a "CIA fabrication" [3] and again lamenting the fact that Bezemov's [sic.] ideas of ideological subversion are often used by the Alt-Right and Anti-Communists [4], thereby attempting to not only smear Bezmenov but also to link anti-communism with "alt-right".
Yes, Bezmenov is a source often used by those who want to show examples of attempted subversion by the Soviet Union, this is why that interview I linked to is a good fit in the context of a question on foreign interference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuri_Bezmenov#Not_notable?
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuri_Bezmenov#Popularity_...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuri_Bezmenov#Possibility...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuri_Bezmenov#Conspiracy_...
Wow. Check out no: 2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engage in atomic war.
I guess they had no clue how the American Psyche works. Japan sinks 6 vessels, U.S. drops the sun on Japan. Not once, but twice, for good measure. You'd think Russia would watch and learn. They haven't learned anything, even today.
I guess they had no clue how the American Psyche works. Japan sinks 6 vessels, U.S. drops the sun on Japan. Not once, but twice, for good measure. You'd think Russia would watch and learn. They haven't learned anything, even today.
Who's teaching them?
32. "Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc."
Was modern art a KGB psy-op covered up by the CIA?
It's frightening to realize that western society has had such powerful totalitarian elements working behind the scenes under the banner of free markets and meritocracy. No wonder everything feels fake.
Occams razor: a much simpler explanation, not disproved by anything in this article, would be that CIA saw that sincere and powerful american and western art was already capturing hearts and minds for effectively, and decided to empower it, since this process aligned with its goals.
And in general, american hegemony roughly aligned with interests of humanity as a whole, because with all it's downfalls and atrocities and ugliness, its still much better than the alternative.
And in general, american hegemony roughly aligned with interests of humanity as a whole, because with all it's downfalls and atrocities and ugliness, its still much better than the alternative.
More an explanation that requires one to be simple than a simple explanation.
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23525366 - June 2020 (7 comments)
Pretty sure there have been other threads, including on the Peter Matthiessen (Paris Review) connection - anybody want to find them?
Edit: there's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10963429 - and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10964477 linking to https://www.salon.com/2012/05/27/exclusive_the_paris_review_....
Edit 2 - found some more:
During Cold War, CIA used ‘Doctor Zhivago’ as a tool to undermine Soviet Union - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7991903 - July 2014 (30 comments)
Abstract Expressionism was (in part) a covert CIA operation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1891222 - Nov 2010 (1 comment)
Others?