upvote
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."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Paid_the_Piper%3F

reply
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?

reply
My brain tingles when I hear "three letter letter agency did X"

But my take on the question: "why is it being pushed by algorithms" is that it is a property of the medium of "algorithmic feeds".

YT, shorts, etc. are a great medium for attention grabbing in a way that is district from TV. Broadcast TV caters to the "average" viewer, ex. Sienfeld, Johnny Carson show. "Algorithmic TV" caters to specialized viewers. Fringe ideas and science, "the truth about X". The crown prince of "algorithmic TV" (IMO of course) is Joe Rogan. For every niche quest he has on, there's many more YT channels on that topic. Weird history, ancient aliens, psychedelics.

So I don't really think the "algorithms" are controlled, rather they "algorithm" elevate weird ideas more than other mediums.

reply
One idea - these days there are many MANY more players using the same strategy - maybe the CIA wants us to be aware of the technique to limit its effectiveness.
reply
Simple enough mechanism in use for normies on YouTube to grasp, vague nationalistic bend, and plenty of people who don’t know makes great YouTube click rates.

I like your comment, though.

reply
Not a direct response to your question; I figure you or others reading this may be interested in the thoughts of the host of The War on Beauty (best found on youtube).
reply
That was because Russia was creating actual art and laughing at the media America produced.
reply
Within the former USSR, there is very, very little demand today for the socialist-realist works produced during the Stalin era. No one goes to see museum exhibitions of the visual art except as a historical oddity, and the literature of that time is rotting unread in myriad provincial libraries. Its own market rejected it. Meanwhile, some of the Western abstract expressionists still appeal to a decent audience of art lovers.
reply
Russia has exceptional art education and the best art school in the world. I am proud as an American that we weaponized shitty art as a cultural weapon (Pollock bukkake)
reply
What art school do you mean?
reply
St. Petersburg Institute for Painting, Sculpture and Architecture
reply
Is this ironic or did you inadvertently omit a word
reply
The USSR was selling art to fund the KGB. Stone glass houses.
reply
> CIA funding helped keep Abstract Expressionist artists like Jackson Pollock afloat

No.

I swear CIA exploits go through so many games of telephone, that reality is whatever people want by the end.

The CIA was involved in including artists like Pollock in the 60s in the MoMA, by then he was well established.

The aim of the CIA was to use american art in juxtaposition to USSR propaganda. Freedom and individualism vs the boring state propaganda of russian workers that people saw leave the iron curtain.

This would be similar to now a days helping american movies get through Chinese censors or to win the Cannes award to showcase how good hollywood and america is. You still need to make the 200 million blockbuster first before the CIA uses their influence.

The myth also perpetuates the idea that modern and contemporary art is basically worthless and that its only valuable because of psyop campaigns from "them" (make it the cia, rich money laundering, sometimes weird antisemetic things take your pick), when in reality Pollock and Rothko were incredibly talented artists and their art has endured well after the CIA ended its operation

reply
deleted
reply
The art may have been created independently, but rich money laundering is the main reason why that art is considered valuable. Remember that this is a movement created in NYC, where they perfected the connection between strange new art forms and billionaire collections of paintings valued into the several million dollars.
reply
The problem with this approach is that the Russian Constructivists and their dealers were very successful in the Soviet Union.

https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-russian-constructivism/

reply
Why is that a problem? Two schools can both produce good work, and still illustrate a contrast.

If a muscular Soviet art scene embarrassed the Americans into juicing up their own art scene, isn’t that good and healthy for both?

reply
I meant the CIA’s approach to destabilizing the Soviet Union through artistic expression. Definitely good for the Art World.
reply
Under Lenin sure. Not so much under Stalin, though. He had old fashioned tastes and disliked abstract art. He preferred "socialist realism" which featured cheesy pictures of happy peasants and tractor drivers working to build Communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism

reply
That could be I don’t know much history and my school never offered classes to study Soviet Realism unlike Russian Constructivism.
reply
Damn, now I'm going to see every Pollock image as some sort of encrypted data where it just looks random because you don't have the key.
reply
You are correct in the sense that CIA was absolutely using art as a propoganda tool and highlighting how US has such a strong artistic foundation. But that doesn't mean they were personally financially keeping Pollock afloat because it somewhat implies that Pollock is a product of CIA funding when in reality, CIA used Pollock's work as an asset in their cold war.
reply
Yes, in a similar way to how RATM’s music was used in Guantanamo.
reply
Nothing says rugged individualism like some good-old state-sponsored abstract art.
reply