| ▲ | alexjplant an hour ago | |||||||
Fellow readers whose interests are piqued by this comment: this is apparently true. This book [1] talks about it in greater depth. From Wikipedia: > [The author] describes the growth of the Abstract Expressionist art movement, and its frequent showcasing in New York's Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), as largely a CIA-sponsored operation [...] Since many abstract expressionist painters and sculptors were anarchistic, and strongly anti-CIA, a "long leash" policy was adopted that "kept CIA operatives at a remove of two or three degrees from the artists and art exhibitions—sometimes even more—so that they could not be linked to any furtive governmental bankrolling." | ||||||||
| ▲ | faidit 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
This narrative has been popularized all over social media for the last couple years. Obviously it's true and not a surprise to anyone familiar with the history. But no one is asking more complex questions: why is it being pushed by algorithms and networks ultimately controlled by the same powers? Is it a "limited hangout"? Well poisoning? What does the "CIA" gain from revealing a sliver of its past activities and discrediting (both directly and by insinuation) a large number of radical artists and thinkers? | ||||||||
| ▲ | sourdecor 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
That was because Russia was creating actual art and laughing at the media America produced. | ||||||||
| ||||||||