Modern art was CIA "weapon"

independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

It all makes sense now.

Disgusting to even consider calling this art.

>that
>weapon

lol, only the ones who got drugged up can decipher the symbolism in that painting

It's not art, it's propaganda.

We all have a reason to ignore it now.

inb4 people that don't understand modern art. the american establishment liked modernist painters like pollock because it promoted universal ideals of beauty (albeit in modernist form) rather than the anti-aesthetic of the dadaists and pop-artists who often had explicitly anti-american, communist sympathies

modern existed long before the cia was a thing and long before america was even relevant

shit article

old pol is back

bringing up art in 2017
not knowing design is the future
and has been for the past 5 yrs

Tell me, how does menstrual blood or feces factor into this "design"? Prominently?

it also helped bump art criticism up a level of abstraction, thereby cheapening much of the same language we use for more serious matters. if art epochs accurately reflect the times, and you're not allowed to call the piece a paint-splattered canvas, one nation could attack another with weaponized modern art.

Right so the US government has been behind the total degradation of the West and Marxism, thanks a lot America for ruining everything

YOU'RE ALL FUCKING RETARDED.
THIS IS POST-MODERN ART.
GOD DAMN GET SOME CULTURE.

Aside from that, I aggree for the most part.
Post-modernism is a shining example of everything that is degrading society.

jackson pollock died a couple decades before pomo existed bro

Pollock is more degenerate than pornography, Jerry Springer & Bill Nye.

Thats the point, the artists were free to do anything compared to commiecucks

>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.

CIA has run the ENTIRE US MEDIA since the 1970s (run = editorial control, meaning they decide what is acceptable speech, discussion, all of it. reporters are not all "in on it", they are just useful idiots (goyim)):

wikipedia.org/operation_mockingbird

...

The principles of Post-Modernism arrived in the 40s but people didn't call it that until later.
Here's the easy way to tell them apart:
Modernism is about the end result. The piece is to convey something specifc to the viewer (a scene, an idea, a feeling) and was created to invoke that specific thing.
Post-modernism is about the process and the artist's "fee-fees". It leaves the meaning of the piece wide open for interpretation usually because the artist had no intention when making it besides getting paid, getting recognition for their depth, or just plain attention-whoring.

it was a cia weapon, on many levels.

on the surface, it was shit, but the popularity the CIA created pissed off the russians, who only knew oil mastery,

deeper, it is 4d/5d metaprogramming (amazing, deep, hyperdimensional stuff) and exposure to it alters the way your brain works

i wish they'd fund me.

it isn't symbolism, it bypasses symbolism, and therefore the ego defense systems. Its meta as fuck

the CIA spent millions and millions promoting pollock. it ain't shit.

>a movement which existed from 1860-1970 is shit because of a few Pollock paintings

Is Sup Forums full of retards?

No shit but thats not what the article is about you simpleton. Its about the CIA using modern art in America as a form of propaganda during the Cold War.

The person who wrote the article is retarded and knows nothing about art history.
They're working under the assumption that since no one called it post-modern at the time it was created it must be modern.
The thing their dumb ass doesn't realize is that post-modernism is generally placed as having begun immediately after the end of ww2 to have a specific time-frame.
All the art used for cold war purposes was 100% post-modern.

they liked his paintings because he was a tortured, enigmatic recluse who died early and looked good in a black and white picture with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. Modern art's value is derived from the image and appeal of the artist not the art itself

Been known for awhile now. Its all about destroying beauty and history. Replacing your mind with subjectivity and being open to degeneracy and ugliness.

see
P.S. What you just described is Post-modern not modern but it's a spot on description of post-modernism

whats with pedos and modern art?

Well that explains disco...

Sorry faggot, it's just a way to launder money. Come up with whatever retarded faggotry you want to, to explain why this garbage is worth something but the people up top use it as an easy way to shuffle around money without really having to put effort into explaining why a piece of canvase is worth 70k+.
These dudes don't really care about this shit and you shouldn't fall for it either.

To be honest the ratio between really, truly great art and art that exists simply as an investment to hedge against inflation for the wealthy is probably about the same today as it has been throughout the centuries. There are museums filled with not particularly inspiring pictures of people sitting on horses, lets just be honest.

A: You mean Post-Modern
B: Post-modern is all around degeneracy. I once saw a "post-modern performance piece" where a woman cut a hole in her jeans and used her hand to shove black paint (from a spaghetti-o's can) into her cunt while masturbating. If it's degenerate, post-modernists will call it "Deep, Brave, Insightful, a testament to the human condition" etc.

We need to fix the artistic community.

Pollock is the culmination of a long process of cultural degradation. Although modernism was an interesting period of experimentation in interesting techniques, the end result was ultimately alienating. This modernism becomes so conceptual, that the only way people can defend its value is by extorting the level of mental gymnastics required to appraise that value.

I recognise that painting, it's Sappho falling in love on the left. She was an excellent Greek Lyric poet but only bits and pieces of her works remain.
I love it when art has actual meaning that precedes the artist.

What's really weird is that conservatives tend to embrace traditional art and progressives tend to embrace modern and contemporary art but communist states LOVE traditional art because it's based on concrete hard work and they are all about the workers and the objectivity of value. Contemporary art was always right wing because it symbolizes the subjectivity of value, a person could say that some splattering of bird shit on a wall has value and sell it if someone is willing to buy it. The CIA was trying to prop up the west as being dialectically forward in it's thinking by doing this while making the USSR look outdated and backwards with it's respect for realism. It's weird how today everything is completely inverted and you have leftists pushing this weird capitalist art and right wingers embracing traditional art.

Yep. It's "Sappho And Alcaeus", by Alma Tadema. He worked exclusively in Classic themes, especially Roman.

The CIA was pushing for the subjectivity of value, which is the basis of capitalism. The USSR was pushing the objectivity of value, which is why they were pushing social realism. If you look at it from that perspective the whole thing makes sense. Most people don't think about it like that. They just associate contemporary art with the left and traditional art with the right, which is just an associative relationship, not an ideological one.

I found something similar

Traditional art's benefactors were usually the aristocracy. The possibility could be that it differs from Socialist Realism in the sense that it promotes hierarchy and order (God, King and so on). Both have the same techniques and outlook (it should follow a well-defined theory of form) but their message is ideologically different.
Some right-wingers embrace traditional art for its prestige and respect for beauty, which supersedes subjectivity of value.

He's got a whole slew of paintings like that - he liked pretty girls on marble balconies, in the sun.

Check out more of his work, he was an amazing draftsman and his technique is flawless.

>the colour of the marble
>the shadows from the tree
How does he do it? It's supreme

Saying modern art was a cia weapon is like saying metallica worked for the cia because their music was used to torture ragheads. You're all stupid.

>not knowing that modern and post-modern art is design

Because it's not something defined as art by 12th century bourgeois???

12th century bourgeois didn't define art

did you read the article, moron?

did u even read the article?

This shit actually looks cool to me though no homo

Galacticamaru is immortal that explains everything

>How does he do it? It's supreme

>the colour of the marble
It's just white with some yellow fade and some dark shit near the edges. Not that hard. You can learn how to do it in a day.

>the shadows from the tree
It's a cast shadow. Just make the area slightly darker.

>OMG SUCH PERFECT ART. WHENEVER I SEE A PAINTING OF A PRETTY LADY, MY DICK TELLS ME IT IS GOOD ART

Sup Forums is filled with puberty high school drop outs. I swear.

user gets it. There is a growing resurgence of traditional art being built on atelier training. It's relatively more conservative, but still full of leftists.

You are the same person to have used the word "bourgeois" unironically in this thread, I think you should go

I didn't read it.

Maybe not exactly 12th but all throughout the middle ages, those at the top were defining stuff as art. I just don't like when people argue that classical art is the only real thing without knowing where it comes from.

That's pretty cool-looking mate.

Got a link?

Isn't modern art and artshows just a huge money laundering front now?

People know exactly where it came from, and that's why they like it.

Universal ideals of beauty?

It's fucking paint splattered randomly on a canvas.

You are either lying or brainwashed.

The middle ages are nearly irrelevent in art history. The rennaissance was an attempt to return to what the Greeks accomplished. The upper classes were the primary patrons and many artists were upper class, especially later on (18th, 19th c.) but rennaissance artists were highly skilled craftsmen, essentially, who were very serious about their craft. They didn't just listen to the whims of some rich fucks

Article dated October 1995.
Author does not have any other content.
What does it mean?

One person gets it. It is the easieast way to shuffle money around to avoid scrutiny. Another benefit is the insurance racket tied to it. Buy a piece, get it appraised for more than its worth, have it stolen. Insurance pays out. Making money out of thin air. In actuality piece is sitting at a friend's home, which was sold through the underground market.

Wasn't the ruling class with the preachers in Greece pushing ideas about mythology, life on to people?

The only thing I can conclude from that then is that the american view of beauty and american values are absolute shit. Because modern 'art' is absolute shit.

There may have been some influence on religious belief, but I doubt ancient Greek paganism was spread like Christianity was by the church. There were many different cults. The point is the wealthy funded the arts but it was the artists and philosophers who moved it forward.

Look at American painters before modernism. Some of the best landscape painting you will ever see.

Modern (((art))) is a front for money laundering you fucking newfag.

Lurk harder.

i love that it is showing vandalism

should be able to tineye it Or you could buy the original. $2k bargain