In the mid-twentieth century, modern art and design represented the liberalism, individualism, dynamic activity, and creative risk possible in a free society. Jackson Pollock’s gestural style, for instance, drew an effective counterpoint to Nazi, and then Soviet, oppression. Modernism, in fact, became a weapon of the Cold War. Both the State Department and the CIA supported exhibitions of American art all over the world.
The preeminent Cultural Cold Warrior, Thomas W. Braden, who served as MoMA’s executive secretary from 1948-1949, later joined the CIA in 1950 to supervise its cultural activities. Braden noted, in a Saturday Evening Post article titled “I’m glad the CIA is ‘immoral’” that American art “won more acclaim for the U.S. …than John Foster Dulles or Dwight D. Eisenhower could have bought with a hundred speeches.”
The relationship between Modern Art and American diplomacy began during WWII, when the Museum of Modern Art was mobilized for the war effort. MoMA was founded in 1929 by Abby Aldrich Rockefeller. A decade later, her son Nelson Rockefeller became president of the Museum. In 1940, while he was still President of MoMA, Rockefeller was appointed the Roosevelt Administration’s Coordinator of Inter-American affairs. He also served as Roosevelt’s Assistant Secretary of State in Latin America.
The Museum followed suit. MoMA fulfilled 38 government contracts for cultural materials during the Second World War, and mounted 19 exhibitions of contemporary American painting for the Coordinator’s office, which were exhibited throughout Latin America. (This direct relationship between the avant-garde and the war effort was well suited: The term avant-garde actually began as a French military term to describe vanguard troops advancing into battle.)
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 2nd, 2023, 07:47
by maidenhaver
Ezra Pound was definitely CIA.
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 2nd, 2023, 08:00
by maidenhaver
Tax money should be spent to commission art, the problem is women will get involved.
I am not anti-Semitic, and I distinguish between the Jewish usurer and the Jew who does an honest day's work for a living.
Hitler and Mussolini were simple men from the country. I think that Hitler was a Saint, and wanted nothing for himself. I think that he was fooled into anti-Semitism and it ruined him. That was his mistake. When you see the "mess" that Italy gets into by bumping off Mussolini, you will see why someone could believe in some of his efforts.
— Ezra Pound
Sounds a bit like a more intelligent and refined version of Kanye
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 2nd, 2023, 12:47
by J1M
Tax evasion and money laundering plus justification for why the 'art' in these scams looks like shit.
Tax evasion and money laundering plus justification for why the 'art' in these scams looks like shit.
That describes "modern art" today, but how did it start — who gave it legitimacy and why?
It wasn't always a money laundering scheme.
Who gave it legitimacy? Who gives any art legitimacy?
In short: money and prestige.
Art didn't used to be legitimate or valuable just for being art. That's a modernist view and complete degeneracy tbqh
Now that the plebes have access to money, spare time and lack meaning in their lives, it becomes possible to sell art as something for them to find meaning or worth in. So in order to give art legitimacy (to the plebes) it has to be marketed like any other product.
The artist must be made a star and the pieces he creates must be exhibited at the fanciest exhibitions, and sell for massive amounts of money.
Do that long enough and people will start to think that this is "legitimate".
Dadaism proclaimed that "Anyone can do art" and "Everything is art", both of which are lies.
If you reduce it to two absurd adages that are so short as to be meaningless, sure.
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 3rd, 2023, 14:04
by madbringer
You don't need to look further back than the postmodernist movement. I'd say that was the first cancerous tumor on art, spawned by the jew. And if not the first, the most influential. Deconstructing things is how kikes operate, except, of course, they never deconstruct their own psychotic nihilism.
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 5th, 2023, 06:58
by agentorange
There's no question that the CIA and American government in general used abstract, abstract-expressionist art as one means of spreading American ideology during the post-WW2 era, in the same way that the Russians had their social realist style to promote their own ideology. But modern/post-modern thinking and art was already pretty well established by that point with most of its origins in Europe, some of the most influential and best post-modern painters even came out of Russia (Malevich, Kandisnky, a catholic and a christian). American artists like Pollock and Rothko were already active prior to WW2, although not remotely as famous as they would become after WW2. So it's really more like the CIA identified something that was already taking place, realized it would fit their ambitions and be a useful tool, and decided to make use of it/promote it. Hypothetically if anyone in this thread were to make a game, write a book, paint a picture, and they were sincerely doing that because they just wanted to create a great work, but the CIA saw your work and decided it would fit their ambitions for global hegemony in some way and decided to use their power to promote your work, without your knowledge, are you now a CIA asset and your work a CIA psy-op?
Tax evasion and money laundering plus justification for why the 'art' in these scams looks like shit.
By encouraging a form of painting where there are no standards of any kind, no criteria for judging what is good or not good, you effectively have something which is totally value free but which can then have any possible value attached to it without raising suspicion. The whole "art market" is almost totally divorced from actual artists and art, or painters and paintings, illustrators and illustrations, what have you, (when articles come out about such and such a painting selling for $200 million at auction they rarely if ever mention that the person who painted it, if they are still alive, receives 0% of the sale) and is a make-believe world where rich people pass around absurd amounts of money, it just happens to use art as a means to pass the money around and thereby has a catastrophic effect on it, but of course that's what comes to mind when most people hear the term "art" now days because it's what results in the most news headlines (all the controversy surrounding it is of course also deliberate, since its a way to increase awareness of a particular work or artist and thereby increase their value.) Someone pays $50 million for a scribble, it is now effectively worth $50 million, the countless articles about how someone spent $50 million on said scribble then drives its price up and it can now be sold for $100 million.
Although I do also think a lot of rich people are genuinely tasteless retards and either think that what they're buying is worth that much because some critic said so, or that they use their money to inflate the value of whatever they like so that it becomes highly valued, and because a lot of people conflate price with quality they are effectively buying their way into taste.
By encouraging a form of painting where there are no standards of any kind, no criteria for judging what is good or not good, you effectively have something which is totally value free but which can then have any possible value attached to it without raising suspicion. The whole "art market" is almost totally divorced from actual artists and art, or painters and paintings, illustrators and illustrations, what have you, (when articles come out about such and such a painting selling for $200 million at auction they rarely if ever mention that the person who painted it, if they are still alive, receives 0% of the sale) and is a make-believe world where rich people pass around absurd amounts of money, it just happens to use art as a means to pass the money around and thereby has a catastrophic effect on it, but of course that's what comes to mind when most people hear the term "art" now days because it's what results in the most news headlines (all the controversy surrounding it is of course also deliberate, since its a way to increase awareness of a particular work or artist and thereby increase their value.) Someone pays $50 million for a scribble, it is now effectively worth $50 million, the countless articles about how someone spent $50 million on said scribble then drives its price up and it can now be sold for $100 million.
An echo of this can be seen in the NFT market where the "works" being bought and sold didn't even have the merit of being manufactured, and it was very quickly exposed that most of the volume of this market was entirely fake and fabricated by people selling tokens to themselves. It all collapsed within months and lost 99.9% of its value.
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 5th, 2023, 15:03
by Emphyrio
modern art started as a real thing that real artists with real skills were very excited about. Realism had reached its peak, there was no way anybody was going to be outpainting artists like Bouguereau or Alma-Tadema. The goals of modern art even made sense- sure you can make a beautiful scene when you've spent months painting naked roman ladies, but can you create beauty with just a line, a shape, a color, or random spackles of paint? They wanted to tear art down to its foundational principles and rebuild it.
The CIA promoted modern art I think in "good faith". Modern was just what was in style. Elites were embarrassed that the best western artists were, shockingly, working for a living, creating magazine covers and ad spreads instead of painting cathedral ceilings or whatever. The CIA backed modern art to show that the west was "hip" and "with it". Of course it went about as well as today's CIA attempts to do that. Now realism has come back into style and new art history books have more emphasis on cartooning, illustration and other commercial art, which were previously ignored.
Hypothetically if anyone in this thread were to make a game, write a book, paint a picture, and they were sincerely doing that because they just wanted to create a great work, but the CIA saw your work and decided it would fit their ambitions for global hegemony in some way and decided to use their power to promote your work, without your knowledge, are you now a CIA asset and your work a CIA psy-op?
Yes.
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 6th, 2023, 18:34
by maidenhaver
Let's just extend asset to mean everybody born on earth since the CIA's global hegemony can use anybody, anywhere. The CIA is God, or bad guy God, and we're just his assets. Globohomo is a cartoon villain.
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 6th, 2023, 18:40
by maidenhaver
And not just earth, but its widely believed the CIA are able to astrally project (according to the CIA) and talk to demonic entities, so let's just assume CIA are the boss right before the final boss, but they could also be the final boss.
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 6th, 2023, 18:42
by Dead
People think they can take establishment money and use it for good, which is retarded. But they try to make it really hard to make art without suffering a lot unless you do what they want.
Hypothetically if anyone in this thread were to make a game, write a book, paint a picture, and they were sincerely doing that because they just wanted to create a great work, but the CIA saw your work and decided it would fit their ambitions for global hegemony in some way and decided to use their power to promote your work, without your knowledge, are you now a CIA asset and your work a CIA psy-op?
You were probably doing something wrong from the beginning if the CIA decided it were a good idea to promote your work.
Hypothetically if anyone in this thread were to make a game, write a book, paint a picture, and they were sincerely doing that because they just wanted to create a great work, but the CIA saw your work and decided it would fit their ambitions for global hegemony in some way and decided to use their power to promote your work, without your knowledge, are you now a CIA asset and your work a CIA psy-op?
You were probably doing something wrong from the beginning if the CIA decided it were a good idea to promote your work.
CIA before women and minorities were kinda badass. Then something happened in the Ivy League.
Let's just extend asset to mean everybody born on earth since the CIA's global hegemony can use anybody, anywhere. The CIA is God, or bad guy God, and we're just his assets. Globohomo is a cartoon villain.
The normie brain is coping. He cries out in protest, "no the world cannot be like this!"
That would be absurd. What next? Men pretending to be women, imprisonment presented as liberty, cultural identity erased to promote pluralism?
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 7th, 2023, 18:10
by maidenhaver
Like what? What's the world like?
Was Modern Art Really a CIA Psy-Op?
Posted: June 7th, 2023, 22:56
by Klerik
These fuckers need to call me but I don't think that would look good to the people in the HR department