It has been a running joke or circulated as an urban legend among artistic communities for many years, but recent research has shown that it is in fact true. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) made use of works of American contemporary art as a weapon during the cold war. These works included paintings by artists such as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning, and Mark Rothko, among others. Over a period of more than 20 years, the CIA developed and promoted American abstract expressionist art all over the globe in the manner of a renaissance prince, with the exception that it carried out its activities in secret. It is quite unlikely that the two are connected. During this time period, the 1950s and the 1960s, the vast majority of americans disapproved of or even loathed contemporary art. President Harry S. Truman summed up the prevalent attitude when he declared, “if that’s art, then i’m a hottentot.” As for the artists themselves, many of them were former communists who were barely acceptable in America during the mccarthyite period. These were not the kinds of individuals who were typically likely to obtain financial support from the United States government. Why did the CIA back them up in their endeavors? Because in the propaganda battle that was going on between the United States and the Soviet Union, this new creative movement could be held up as evidence of the inventiveness, intellectual independence, and cultural dominance of the United States. Russian art, which was constrained ideologically by communism, was unable to compete with other forms of artistic expression. Former CIA officers have officially verified for the very first time the existence of this strategy, which has been the subject of rumors and debate for a significant amount of time. Unbeknownst to the artists, the new american art was covertly fostered under a program known as the “long leash.” These arrangements are, in some respects, comparable to the indirect support that the CIA provided to the journal encounter, which was edited by stephen spender. As soon as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was established in 1947, a decision was made to include culture and art into the US cold war arsenal. The new agency, which was shocked by the continued allure communism held for many artists and intellectuals in the west, established a division called the propaganda assets inventory. At its zenith, this division had the ability to exert influence over more than 800 different newspapers, magazines, and public information organizations. They made light of the situation by comparing it to a Wurlitzer jukebox, saying that the CIA could hear whatever song it chose playing anywhere in the globe by just pushing a button. The next significant development took place in 1950, with the establishment of the International Organizations Division (IOD) under the leadership of Tom Braden. It was their office that provided funding for the animated adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. They were also the ones that financed American jazz performers, opera performances, and the worldwide touring program for the Boston Symphony Orchestra. its agents were placed in the book sector, in the film industry, and some of them even worked as travel writers for the renowned Fodor’s Guides. And as we now know, it was essential in the development of abstract expressionism, an anarchist avant-garde movement in the United States. At first, there was a greater emphasis placed on making overt efforts to encourage the new American art. In 1947, the United States Department of State organized and funded a traveling worldwide exhibition named “advancing american art.” The purpose of the show was to refute claims made by the Soviet Union that the United States was a cultural wasteland. However, the play was very controversial in the United States, leading President Truman to make the now-famous “hottentot” comment and leading one irate congressman to say, “I am just a stupid American who pays taxes for this type of rubbish.” Unfortunately, we had to call off the excursion. The situation had become difficult for the United States administration. This philistinism, in conjunction with Joseph McCarthy’s frenzied denunciations of anything that was avant-garde or unconventional, was very humiliating. It brought into question the notion that the United States of America was a sophisticated and culturally diverse democracy. Additionally, as a result of this, the United States government was unable to consolidate the change in cultural superiority that had occurred from Paris to New York City since the 1930s. In order to find a solution to this conundrum, the CIA was called in. The relationship is not quite as out of the ordinary as it may at first seem. At this time, the new agency, which was staffed primarily by graduates of yale and harvard and many of whom collected art and wrote novels in their spare time, was a haven of liberalism when compared to a political world that was dominated by mccarthy or with J. Edgar Hoover’s fbi. This was because the new agency was staffed by yale and harvard graduates. If there was one official organization that was qualified to honor the group of leninists, trotskyites, and heavy drinkers who comprised the new york school, it was the CIA. There has not been any first-hand proof to indicate that this link was made up to this point; nevertheless, a former case officer named Donald Jameson has broken the quiet for the very first time. According to him, the agency did see the potential in abstract expressionism and did, in fact, pursue that potential. “In regards to abstract expressionism, I’d love to be able to state that the CIA originated it simply to see what happens in New York City and downtown Soho tomorrow!” he laughed. “but I believe that what we accomplished in the end was to see the difference between the two. It came to be acknowledged that abstract expressionism was the sort of work that gave the impression that socialist realism was even more stylized, rigid, and constrained than it really was. Moreover, some of the exhibitions made use of the relationship between the two countries. “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,” said the curator of one of the exhibitions. And thus, one could fairly appropriately and rightly conclude that whatever they criticized that much and so heavy-handedly was worth supporting in some kind or another. In order for the CIA to pursue its covert involvement in the American left-wing avant-garde, it had to be certain that its sponsorship could not be uncovered. “matters of this type could only have been done at two or three removes,” Mr. Jameson added. “This is so that there wouldn’t be any issue of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these individuals in the organization.” And there was no way that it could have been much closer, given that the majority of them were individuals who had very little regard for the government in general, and absolutely none for the CIA in particular. If you had to utilize individuals who regarded themselves to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, DC, in some way or another, that would be OK with me, but if you didn’t have to, that would be even better. This was referred to as the “long leash.” The Congress for Cultural Freedom, an enormous gathering of intellectuals, authors, historians, poets, and painters, was established in 1950 with funding from the CIA and was directed by a CIA official. This event became the centerpiece of the CIA’s mission to promote cultural freedom. It was the cultural stronghold from which Moscow and its “fellow travellers” in the west could be fended off, making it the beach-head from which culture could be protected. At the height of its power, it had offices in thirty-five different countries and produced over twenty publications, one of which was encounter. The CIA had the opportunity to develop its clandestine interest in abstract expressionism via the use of the Congress for Cultural Freedom as the appropriate front. No one, even the artists, would be any the wiser since it would be the official sponsor of traveling shows, and its journals would give important venues for reviewers who are favorable to the new American painting. During the 1950s, this organization organized a number of abstract expressionist art shows that were open to the public. The exhibition “the new american painting” was one of the most prominent, and it traveled to all of the major cities in Europe in 1958 and 1959. Other important exhibitions are “Modern Art in the United States” (1955) and “Masterpieces of the Twentieth Century,” both of which took place in 1955. (1952). Due of the prohibitive costs associated with transporting and exhibiting abstract expressionism, wealthy collectors and museums were brought into the mix. The most prominent of these individuals was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had been instrumental in the establishment of the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Rockefeller was one of the most influential patrons of abstract expressionism, which he referred to as “free enterprise painting.” Rockefeller served as president of what he referred to as “mummy’s museum.” His museum was awarded a contract by the Congress for Cultural Freedom to organize and curate the majority of that organization’s significant art exhibits. In addition, the CIA could be reached from the museum by a number of different bridges. Willie Paley, who was President of CBS Broadcasting and a Founding Father of the CIA, was a Member of the Board of Directors for the International Program at the Museum. Chairman of the agency was john hay whitney, who had previously worked for the agency’s predecessor during the war, the oss. In 1949, Tom Braden, who would later become the first head of the CIA’s International Organizations Division, served as the executive secretary of the museum. Mr. Braden, who is now in his nineties and resides in Woodbridge, Virginia, has a home that is filled with abstract expressionist artwork and is protected by giant alsatians. He gave an explanation on the intent of the iod. “We wanted to unite all of the people who were writers, who were musicians, and who were artists to demonstrate that the west and the United States was dedicated to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, what you must say, what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union at the time. “We wanted to show that the west and the United States was devoted to intellectual achievement and to freedom of expression. I believe that it was the most important section that the CIA had, and I believe that it played an extremely significant part in the cold war. It was quite difficult to persuade congress to go along with some of the things we wanted to do, such as send paintings overseas, send symphonies abroad, and publish periodicals abroad. He stated that his section had functioned in secret because of the public’s animosity toward the avant-garde. That was one of the many reasons why it had to be carried out in secret. It absolutely had to remain a mystery. It was necessary for us to maintain our secrecy in order to foster transparency. If this meant that I had to play pope to the Michelangelos of this century, then so be it. Mr. Braden said that “it needs a pope or someone with a lot of money to recognize art and to encourage it.” “and after many centuries, people remark, ‘Oh look, the Sistine Chapel! It’s the most beautiful thing on earth!'” Since the first artist and the first rich or pope who funded him, civilization has been struggling with this issue. It is something that has always been a difficulty. “and yet, if it weren’t for the popes or the multi-millionaires, we wouldn’t have had any art.” If not for this funding, do you think that abstract expressionism would have been the most prominent art trend in the years after the war? The answer is most likely going to be yes. In the same vein, it would be absurd to imply that the CIA is trying to trick you into believing anything when you look at an abstract expressionist picture. But take a look at what became of this artwork: in the marble hallways of banks, airports, city halls, boardrooms, and great galleries; in city halls, boardrooms, and great galleries. These paintings served as a symbol and a hallmark for the culture and ideology that its proponents, known as “cold warriors,” sought to exhibit everywhere that it mattered. These proponents marketed the paintings. They were successful. * Hidden Hands, which will air on Channel 4 on the following Sunday at 8:00 p.m., tells the whole tale of the CIA and contemporary art. Tonight marks the premiere of the very first episode of the new series. A book about the cultural cold war is now being written by Frances Stonor Saunders. Related articles may be found at http://www.albrechtdurerblog.com/, including those on Albrecht Durer, ebooks, art, history, and secrets. Send a copy of this article to a friend via email! get email updates including stories much like this one right to your inbox. Today, you may get a free subscription! ,/p”,!– /wp:paragraph –“
Author
jackemails@gmail.com