Before You Buy That Rothko…How the CIA Covertly Nurtured Modern Art as a Cold War “Weapon”

Screen Shot 2015-05-14 at 10.33.33 AM

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.

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 Program. 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.

– From the excellent Independent article published in 1995: Modern Art Was CIA ‘Weapon’

Most of you will be aware of the oligarch bidding wars for high end art at recent auctions held by Christie’s and Sotheby’s. In fact, the feeding frenzy was so extreme, the top 10 lots accounted for almost $800 million alone. Some of these paintings are breathtakingly beautiful, such as Vincent Van Gogh’s, “L’Allée des Alyscamps.” Others, not so much. Such as this one by Mark Rothko, which sold for $46.5 million.

Screen Shot 2015-05-14 at 10.17.39 AM

Unsurprisingly, the paintings which seem to be least inspiring were by artists who were covertly pushed by the CIA in the 1950’s as part of its cold war strategy. Mark Rothko, for example, was born in the Russian Empire in 1903 (modern day Latvia) and ended up in America in 1913. Being a Russian artist in America made him the perfect CIA tool, and apparently his art served that purpose unbeknownst to him. The CIA program was originally set up in 1947, under the not so covert division called the Propaganda Assets Inventory. You really can’t make this up.

In one of the most interesting articles I’ve ever read, we learn from the UK Independent in a 1995 article:

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, rumored 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.

This was the “long leash”. The centerpiece 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 travelers” 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.

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 Program. 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 Organizations Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.

Modern art fame, like so much else, was brought to you by the CIA, mainstream media and the Rockefellers.

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.”

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.

Of course, this stuff is still going on as much as ever, if not more so, and we can only begin to imagine how much modern American society is being covertly manipulated, duped and scammed by CIA propagandists. In case you need a few examples…

U.S. Officials Panic About Seymour Hersh Story; Then Deny His Claims Using Jedi Mind Tricks

Bankers for Hire – Former Bank of Baltimore CEO Admits He Worked for the CIA

Revelations from the Torture Report – CIA Lies, Nazi Methods and the $81 Million No-Bid Torture Contract

“Non-Official Cover” – Respected German Journalist Blows Whistle on How the CIA Controls the Media

Remember Zero Dark Thirty? Turns Out it was a CIA Propaganda Film After All

Of course, that’s just the very tip of the iceberg.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

3 thoughts on “Before You Buy That Rothko…How the CIA Covertly Nurtured Modern Art as a Cold War “Weapon””

  1. Art as collateral

    According to a recent report in the New York Times, not only are more banks lending against art as collateral; some are even starting to create collateralized debt obligations with art as the underlying asset.

    But is this really possible? A collateralized debt obligation is a structured asset-backed security. It pools fixed income securities (for example, mortgages, loans and credit card debt) and repackages these into ‘tranches’ which are sold to investors.

    The cash flow these assets generate is paid to investors according to the tranche in which they have invested: the senior tranches are safer for investors and have a higher credit rating; the lower tranches are the first affected if the cash flow proves insufficient to pay all the investors.

    It is hard to see how art would fit into this picture. Art does not supply cash flow, but it could serve as collateral for a loan that could be included in the bundle of fixed income securities pooled in a CDO.

    Janet Tavakoli, president of Tavakoli Structured Finance and author of several books on CDOs, says she is unaware of any art CDOs at this time, but she has certainly seen art being used as collateral for loans. Last year, for instance, Goldman Sachs came to the aid of hedge fund manager Stevie Cohen, head of SAC Capital Advisors, with a loan backed by Cohen’s $1 billion art collection.

    “The financial market is in a bubble. When financial bubbles burst, art prices plummet. Goldman Sachs is always looking for a way to lay off risk on someone else,” says Tavakoli.

    http://www.privateartinvestor.com/art-business/art-as-collateral-an-expert-view/

    Reply
  2. stuff like this is super fucking fascinating. the use of propoganda in art was well established by goebls, and stalins people too.

    however, the genius of the cia is how they injected new ‘values’ without people even seeing the open circus becasue they would fund things surrepticiously and recruit talent without the talent even knowing they were bieng recruited.

    this was done not only for much of the crappy art—but also secular movements of various stripes that were ideologically weaponized.

    in particular, feminism’s early beginning were truned into something beyond mere enfranchisement suffragist movements into, firstly–a consumer marketing approach of the corporate madison avenue shops in the 20’s and 30s. this market pr and sales approach to feminism—-making a social movement to surrepticious promote consumerism as part of female identity—-

    but by the 70s—–a few noteable feminists were being funded by cia front groups to help spread the idea of american progressiveness. modern 2nd let alone 3rd wave femijnism was just weaponized progressiveness to help uknowlingly fight communism.

    the green movement is also in part following this same model. and i think bizzarely enough, has also been used in contravention by the russians and others against americans. the anti-nuclear movemnt was no doubt very strongly encouraged by the soviets, however green peace and others may have, at various times had cia support for some of their activities oddly enough.

    control the landscape of dissent and the game is won before it even begins.
    psychological warfare is a doozie.

    and rothko sucks. so does pollack. so does warhol. so do all those assholes who made a mockery of a lot of great cool dada-ist stuff that came before.

    Reply

Leave a Reply