Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Weaponizing the Arts

Weaponizing the Arts 30 Nov 2014 11:51 #1

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5812
  • Likes received: 1560
Weaponizing the Arts
excerpt--
Such a trap might have been laid by the Soviets for the West during the Cold War. Like the artistic radicals of the Romantic age, the Soviets managed to trick their Western adversaries into abandoning their self-avowed principles and embracing the very nihilism they initially rejected. In its propaganda war with the West, the Soviet Union began suggesting “that America was a cultural desert” (Saunders). In response, elements in the West began presenting Abstract Expressionist painting “as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete” (ibid). Again, the Soviet propaganda architects may have anticipated and desired such a response from the West. In all likelihood, the Soviets knew that certain factions in the West would cast off moral restraint in order to beat their Eastern competitors on every front of the Cold War, including culture.

Clearly, the vast majority of Americans did not wish to embrace Abstract Expressionism. Strong resistance emerged in 1947, with the cancellation of a touring international exhibition that was organized and paid for by the U.S. State Department (ibid). Entitled “Advancing American Art,” the exhibition offended Americans (ibid). President Harry Truman accurately expressed public outrage when he described the exhibition as taxpayer-subsidized “trash” and stated, “If that’s art, then I’m a Hottentot” (ibid). In order to break down resistance and promote acceptance of Abstract Expressionism, the U.S. government enlisted the help of an organization that has never been known as a paragon of morality: the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This move was not at all surprising; the Agency had endeavored to weaponize art and culture since its inception
www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/11/19/weaponizing-the-arts/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Weaponizing the Arts 30 Nov 2014 12:54 #2

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20376
  • Likes received: 7951
WEAPONIZE THE ARTS FOR EXPOSING THE LIES !


TRUTH ART


is quite a new genre and the system "burns" the works mercilessly
luckily they get reuploaded faster than they can delete them


Small TRUTH ART Exhibition on TZ:

truth-zone.net/forum/the-lounge/60928-art-videos.html?start=40

.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Weaponizing the Arts 08 Feb 2015 10:50 #3

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5812
  • Likes received: 1560
As usual Frau Fizzle Dink misses the point. :hahano:
We are talking aobut art on a grand scale,not little comic books or you tube videos.

Modern art was CIA 'weapon'

For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.



The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the "long leash" - arrangements similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender.

The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.

The next key step came in 1950, when the International Organisations Division (IOD) was set up under Tom Braden. It was this office which subsidised the animated version of George Orwell's Animal Farm, which sponsored American jazz artists, opera recitals, the Boston Symphony Orchestra's international touring programme. Its agents were placed in the film industry, in publishing houses, even as travel writers for the celebrated Fodor guides. And, we now know, it promoted America's anarchic avant-garde movement, Abstract Expressionism.

Initially, more open attempts were made to support the new American art. In 1947 the State Department organised and paid for a touring international exhibition entitled "Advancing American Art", with the aim of rebutting Soviet suggestions that America was a cultural desert. But the show caused outrage at home, prompting Truman to make his Hottentot remark and one bitter congressman to declare: "I am just a dumb American who pays taxes for this kind of trash." The tour had to be cancelled.

The US government now faced a dilemma. This philistinism, combined with Joseph McCarthy's hysterical denunciations of all that was avant-garde or unorthodox, was deeply embarrassing. It discredited the idea that America was a sophisticated, culturally rich democracy. It also prevented the US government from consolidating the shift in cultural supremacy from Paris to New York since the 1930s. To resolve this dilemma, the CIA was brought in.

The connection is not quite as odd as it might appear. At this time the new agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, many of whom collected art and wrote novels in their spare time, was a haven of liberalism when compared with a political world dominated by McCarthy or with J Edgar Hoover's FBI. If any official institution was in a position to celebrate the collection of Leninists, Trotskyites and heavy drinkers that made up the New York School, it was the CIA.

Until now there has been no first-hand evidence to prove that this connection was made, but for the first time a former case officer, Donald Jameson, has broken the silence. Yes, he says, the agency saw Abstract Expressionism as an opportunity, and yes, it ran with it.

"Regarding Abstract Expressionism, I'd love to be able to say that the CIA invented it just to see what happens in New York and downtown SoHo tomorrow!" he joked. "But I think that what we did really was to recognise the difference. It was recognised that Abstract Expression- ism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and more rigid and confined than it was. And that relationship was exploited in some of the exhibitions.

"In a way our understanding was helped because Moscow in those days was very vicious in its denunciation of any kind of non-conformity to its own very rigid patterns. And so one could quite adequately and accurately reason that anything they criticised that much and that heavy- handedly was worth support one way or another."

To pursue its underground interest in America's lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. "Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes," Mr Jameson explained, "so that there wouldn't be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn't have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA. If you had to use people who considered themselves one way or another to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, well, so much the better perhaps."

This was the "long leash". The centrepiece of the CIA campaign became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a vast jamboree of intellectuals, writers, historians, poets, and artists which was set up with CIA funds in 1950 and run by a CIA agent. It was the beach-head from which culture could be defended against the attacks of Moscow and its "fellow travellers" in the West. At its height, it had offices in 35 countries and published more than two dozen magazines, including Encounter.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom also gave the CIA the ideal front to promote its covert interest in Abstract Expressionism. It would be the official sponsor of touring exhibitions; its magazines would provide useful platforms for critics favourable to the new American painting; and no one, the artists included, would be any the wiser.

This organisation put together several exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the 1950s. One of the most significant, "The New American Painting", visited every big European city in 1958-59. Other influential shows included "Modern Art in the United States" (1955) and "Masterpieces of the Twentieth Century" (1952).

Because Abstract Expressionism was expensive to move around and exhibit, millionaires and museums were called into play. Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art in New York. As president of what he called "Mummy's museum", Rockefeller was one of the biggest backers of Abstract Expressionism (which he called "free enterprise painting"). His museum was contracted to the Congress for Cultural Freedom to organise and curate most of its important art shows.

The museum was also linked to the CIA by several other bridges. William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA, sat on the members' board of the museum's International Programme. John Hay Whitney, who had served in the agency's wartime predecessor, the OSS, was its chairman. And Tom Braden, first chief of the CIA's International Organisations Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.

Now in his eighties, Mr Braden lives in Woodbridge, Virginia, in a house packed with Abstract Expressionist works and guarded by enormous Alsatians. He explained the purpose of the IOD.

"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."

He confirmed that his division had acted secretly because of the public hostility to the avant-garde: "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."

If this meant playing pope to this century's Michelangelos, well, all the better: "It takes a pope or somebody with a lot of money to recognise art and to support it," Mr Braden said. "And after many centuries people say, 'Oh look! the Sistine Chapel, the most beautiful creation on Earth!' It's a problem that civilisation has faced ever since the first artist and the first millionaire or pope who supported him. And yet if it hadn't been for the multi-millionaires or the popes, we wouldn't have had the art."

Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA.

But look where this art ended up: in the marble halls of banks, in airports, in city halls, boardrooms and great galleries. For the Cold Warriors who promoted them, these paintings were a logo, a signature for their culture and system which they wanted to display everywhere that counted. They succeeded.

* The full story of the CIA and modern art is told in 'Hidden Hands' on Channel 4 next Sunday at 8pm. The first programme in the series is screened tonight. Frances Stonor Saunders is writing a book on the cultural Cold War.

Covert Operation

In 1958 the touring exhibition "The New American Painting", including works by Pollock, de Kooning, Motherwell and others, was on show in Paris. The Tate Gallery was keen to have it next, but could not afford to bring it over. Late in the day, an American millionaire and art lover, Julius Fleischmann, stepped in with the cash and the show was brought to London.

The money that Fleischmann provided, however, was not his but the CIA's. It came through a body called the Farfield Foundation, of which Fleischmann was president, but far from being a millionaire's charitable arm, the foundation was a secret conduit for CIA funds.

So, unknown to the Tate, the public or the artists, the exhibition was transferred to London at American taxpayers' expense to serve subtle Cold War propaganda purposes. A former CIA man, Tom Braden, described how such conduits as the Farfield Foundation were set up. "We would go to somebody in New York who was a well-known rich person and we would say, 'We want to set up a foundation.' We would tell him what we were trying to do and pledge him to secrecy, and he would say, 'Of course I'll do it,' and then you would publish a letterhead and his name would be on it and there would be a foundation. It was really a pretty simple device."

Julius Fleischmann was well placed for such a role. He sat on the board of the International Programme of the Museum of Modern Art in New York - as did several powerful figures close to the CIA.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Weaponizing the Arts 08 Feb 2015 11:43 #4

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20376
  • Likes received: 7951
Thank goodness that we have sixmillionthreads-zax on this forum who enlightens us about his iq and the best mainstream subjects on an almost daily basis

:thumbup:

Hope you won't feel "persecuted" (or whatever you called your feeling lately) again, if I post a comment ?!
On your thread, right after your latest most valuable contribution, at that.


Why is Modern Art so Bad


For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone.
Modern Art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins.

What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated?
Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and
how it can be stopped and even reversed.


Read more / watch video: truth-zone.net/forum/the-lounge/60928-art-videos.html?start=60#152323

Edit: If you don't get the connection between your and my comment, don't hesitate to ask, I will gladly explain asap.
.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Last Edit: 08 Feb 2015 11:46 by PFIZIPFEI.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Weaponizing the Arts 08 Feb 2015 11:49 #5

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5812
  • Likes received: 1560
Frau Fizzle Dink in German meldown mode ^^^^^^^

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Weaponizing the Arts 08 Feb 2015 12:39 #6

PFIZIPFEI wrote:
Thank goodness that we have sixmillionthreads-zax on this forum who enlightens us about his iq and the best mainstream subjects on an almost daily basis

:thumbup:

Hope you won't feel "persecuted" (or whatever you called your feeling lately) again, if I post a comment ?!
On your thread, right after your latest most valuable contribution, at that.


Why is Modern Art so Bad


For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone.
Modern Art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins.

What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated?
Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and
how it can be stopped and even reversed.


Read more / watch video: truth-zone.net/forum/the-lounge/60928-art-videos.html?start=60#152323

Edit: If you don't get the connection between your and my comment, don't hesitate to ask, I will gladly explain asap.
.

Why did the Krauts try and loot all of the Art in Europe during WW2 and take it back to Germany? :wissl:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Weaponizing the Arts 08 Feb 2015 12:51 #7

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5812
  • Likes received: 1560
Art----



:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Weaponizing the Arts 08 Feb 2015 13:01 #8

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
entrangermercenary1 wrote:
PFIZIPFEI wrote:
Thank goodness that we have sixmillionthreads-zax on this forum who enlightens us about his iq and the best mainstream subjects on an almost daily basis

:thumbup:

Hope you won't feel "persecuted" (or whatever you called your feeling lately) again, if I post a comment ?!
On your thread, right after your latest most valuable contribution, at that.


Why is Modern Art so Bad


For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone.
Modern Art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins.

What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated?
Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and
how it can be stopped and even reversed.


Read more / watch video: truth-zone.net/forum/the-lounge/60928-art-videos.html?start=60#152323

Edit: If you don't get the connection between your and my comment, don't hesitate to ask, I will gladly explain asap.
.

Why did the Krauts try and loot all of the Art in Europe during WW2 and take it back to Germany? :wissl:
Did they?
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Weaponizing the Arts 08 Feb 2015 14:13 #9

  • Mario
  • Mario's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Mushroom Kingdom
  • You have the Right NOT to Vote! = for EVIL!
  • Posts: 4648
  • Likes received: 1516
zax wrote:
As usual Frau Fizzle Dink misses the point. :hahano:
We are talking aobut art on a grand scale,not little comic books or you tube videos.

Modern art was CIA 'weapon'
Yes and only one small plot of a million more to be revealed.

Key point is; who owns controls & instructs there Mafia CIA club?

Once they spilling there beans people will discover the evil within evil on earth.
Also very closely linked to the military logistics.

Well in a way most things with a strange smell to it are military operations anyway.

@ oiram @
Last Edit: 08 Feb 2015 14:14 by Mario.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
Moscow's warnings to US on weaponizing space and leaving INF7.97Friday, 25 January 2019
Martial Arts Movies7.09Tuesday, 31 December 2013
MMA ( Mixed Martial Arts)7.09Monday, 19 October 2020
Physical activities, sports & martial arts6.93Sunday, 02 February 2014
Audiences Already Voting on Scottish Independence at Arts Festival6.86Wednesday, 17 September 2014
Crowley, luciferianism and the dark 'arts' in the entertainment industry/Tate murders6.71Sunday, 12 April 2015
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 255 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 70 - Raised
( £ 53 GBP )
donation thermometer
21%
Most Recent Donation $50 USD
28th August 2020

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.