I realize some people feel that Abstract Expressionism needs some kind of an excuse for its existence, but the following
purported connection between Abstract Expressionism and the CIA seems just bizarre. It comes from a review of
Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War by Frances Stonor Saunders
One of the most important and fascinating discussions in Saunders' book is about the fact that CIA and its allies in the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) poured vast sums of money into promoting Abstract Expressionist (AE) painting and painters as an antidote to art with a social content. In promoting AE, the CIA fought off the right-wing in Congress. What the CIA saw in AE was an "anti-Communist ideology, the ideology of freedom, of free enterprise. Non-figurative and politically silent it was the very antithesis of socialist realism" (254). They viewed AE as the true expression of the national will. To bypass right-wing criticism, the CIA turned to the private sector (namely MOMA and its co-founder, Nelson Rockefeller, who referred to AE as "free enterprise painting.") Many directors at MOMA had longstanding links to the CIA and were more than willing to lend a hand in promoting AE as a weapon in the cultural Cold War. Heavily funded exhibits of AE were organized all over Europe; art critics were mobilized, and art magazines churned out articles full of lavish praise. The combined economic resources of MOMA and the CIA-run Fairfield Foundation ensured the collaboration of Europe's most prestigious galleries which, in turn, were able to influence aesthetics across Europe.
Art museum directors on the front lines of the Cold War? That sounds like the plot of a Thomas Pynchon novel to me. It also sounds just crazy enough to be true. (via
Early Days of a Better Nation)
Comments
"Or it could be that Abstract Expressionism is crap. Sorry, but a splash of paint on canvas that a toddler could do is not art. Hell, I could paint the crap they're selling and I don't think anyone would give me the millions those paintings sell for."
AE may or may not be "crap," but it seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways here. It's "crap" according to you which, of course, raises the question of why you don't just produce some of it yourself and reap the rewards? Ah, but then you say that you don't think anyone would pay YOU the millions some of the art goes for.
If it's just paint splashed on canvas, why couldn't YOU do the same and make the "millions" as well? Just curious.
Or maybe these are hoaxes too?
...or the CIA.
"It's not just about splashing paint on a canvas or even getting the idea to do so. It's also about getting an art critic to declare your work brilliant."
I actually agree with this. If one assumes that abstact expressionism (or any other school of art) is crap, then the "trick" would be in getting someone of "authority" to laud you and your work and convince the public (or art collectors) that it's the cat's pajamas. Hey, for that alone you deserve to make a few bucks.
"it's the cat's pajamas" is one of the strangest analogies I've ever heard. That's definitely a new one to me crankymediaguy."
Oh, it's just an old American slang expression that I threw in for laughs. I have no idea what the derivation of it is; I only know that it means that something is great, terrific, wonderful, etc.
The CIA's sponsorship of cultural endeavors is far from the government actually creating Abstract Expressionism as a weapon against communism. Many of the details of the CIA's involvement with the Committee for Cultural Freedom are obscure and lost. Therefore, there is little to actually be known about it other than it was something that indeed did happen.
Former CIA officer speaks out