The Secret Funding of Culture Wars - the CIA & Modern Art

Introduction

Whether art is or is not political is an old debate; some claim all art is political, others say that art and artists can be separated and that good art can be enjoyed despite the political leanings of its creator. ‍Not every artist claims to be political, and others argue that everything is political; one thing is for certain. While art may not always use politics for its gains, politics always uses art. Propaganda uses music, visual arts, and more to spread its message. It’s not only the plain and obvious in these messages that are ideologically linked, but also the philosophy behind the aesthetics. Perhaps the most famous example of ideology in art is socialist realism, the official cultural doctrine of the Soviet Union, or the cultural workings of the nazi regime in Germany between 1933 and 1945. 

It’s often these extremes we think of when we think about the ideology behind art, but the truth is that it’s much more common than we think, and it’s not only extreme examples of right and left that have actively used art as a machine of war, some could even argue it’s still happening today. Everything is ideological in some way, even the rejection of ideology is inherently ideological, and in some ways, all art is ideological. We associate romanticism and classical art with conservatism and view it as a glorification of the past. Contrary to this nostalgia, we have modern art which reflects the value of the individual, their right to expression and the inclusion of everyone in a diverse society. It does away with traditional ideas and values and instead embraces a new way of viewing and expressing things. Today, we’re going to be looking at the lesser-known examples of government-funded culture wars and speculating about the current affairs. 

Most people know names like Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Robert Motherwell, and they often invoke strong feelings amongst artists and non-artists alike. People often have a kind of, love them or hate them relationship with these American modernists. Some don’t understand them, others claim to understand them, but no doubt they know them. The truth is that the CIA spent millions of dollars in secret, funding these artists and other modern artists in a secret culture war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 

CIA, the Cold War and Abstract Art

What was a rumour, a conspiracy, or even a joke once is a confirmed fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used modern American art as a weapon in a cultural war against the Soviets. For more than 20 years, the CIA funded and promoted abstract and expressionistic paintings around the world. During a period in the 50’s and 60’s when the great majority of Americans disliked modern art and the direction it was taking, the CIA found a use for these marginalised artists, many of whom were ex-communists and barely accepted by American society by large. This unlikely patron supported these artists because they believed that in a propaganda war against the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement of Abstract Expressionism could be the proof of the creative and intellectual freedom of the US. The rigid cultural doctrine of the Soviet Union, with its focus on Socialist Realism, would never allow for such individual expression and financially funding this art also showed the wealth possible to achieve under capitalism.

This policy, which has only been confirmed recently by former CIA officials, was known as the “long leash” and was unknown to the artists themselves. However, art and culture weren’t something new for the CIA. As soon as it was founded in 1947, and dismayed at the popularity of communism and socialism amongst intellectuals and creatives in the West, the new agency started a division known as “Propaganda Assets Inventory”. Later in the 50s, the office known as International Organisations Divisions (IOD) was set up and subsidised American jazz artists, opera recitals, as well as the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s international touring programme. More attempts were made to support the new American art, especially since the Soviet Union was discrediting the idea that America was a culturally rich democracy. 

The reason Abstract Expressionism was funded, was because it was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and rigid than it was. A lot of aesthetic thought and philosophy went into this culture war. What is best suited against the enemy, what art highlights the ideals of American society? The conclusion was the abstract and modern art that Moscow denounced and criticised so heavily. The CIA had to make sure its patronage was a matter of subterfuge, and the artists they set out to sponsor were often anti-governmental in their ideology and sometimes closer to Moscow in thought than Washington. Which was even better for the government agency. The centrepiece of the “long leash” was the Congress of Cultural Freedom, which was set up with CIA money in the 50’s and run by one of its agents. It included writers, poets, artists and many others and at its height had offices in more than 30 countries and published more than two dozen magazines.

The Congress of Cultural Freedom was the perfect front for the CIA to wage its culture war and the headquarters of its psychological operations relating to modern art. They sponsored touring exhibitions, and the magazines would praise the new American painting movement. They put together several exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the 50s, and toured every big European city in two years at the end of the 50s. They contracted MoMA in New York to organise and curate most of its important art shows, and millions of dollars were used to operate this cultural war machine.

To promote the American ideology of personal freedom and to establish the supremacy of the capitalist free market, they used deception and subtle propaganda to manipulate public opinion, not through politics and elections, but through art. The public was fearful of the avant-garde, but the higher-ups saw the opportunity and took it. Indoctrinating and creating an artificial demand for abstract and modern art. Abstract Expressionism is now everywhere, and it still stands as a symbol for those ideals. Abstract Expressionism was already growing in popularity in art circles before the CIA picked it up, and perhaps it still would have managed to establish itself in the mainstream. But undoubtedly, a lot of its public and financial success was aided by this American government agency in its war against an ideological opponent. 

Abstract expressionism and the US live on, but the Soviet Union collapsed, and Socialist Realism is an art style which has been left in the past. Politics haven’t gone away, though, and unbeknownst to us, there still is a culture war raging on. Even today, the art sponsored, displayed and made is backed by ideology. We might not have hindsight yet, but is it possible that some of the growing underground art scenes are being backed by secret agencies, and what ideology is behind the art we consume today? Are we subject to yet more psyops?

Contemporary Culture & Final Words

The battlefield remains the same: the hearts and minds of the world’s population. The weapon: art is also the same; it only takes different shapes and forms. The established artistic elite still safeguard their abstractions and hold steadfast in their ideological grounding. Wealth and personal freedom, with all that they entail, are at the centre. To the modern human, art, like morals, is subjective. Where statues of individuals once stood are now abstract and geometric shapes, symbolising something greater than the person in question. Figurative art is too easy and doesn’t highlight the complexity of modern man anymore. 

We find ourselves lost and without narrative, and the creative expressions of our time are meta-narratives set on mapping out our collective unconscious. Though it remains unclear if we are simply expressing how lost we are, or if we are making genuine efforts to find a way through. Progress without direction is aimless and useless, and potentially even dangerous. The blind leading the deaf, we turn to our false idols for guidance. Though if they speak freely or if they’re tongues are guided by secret agents remains unclear.

The CIA funded many cultural and even military groups which aligned with them politically or ideologically. They were involved in the Nicaraguan Contras’ cocaine trafficking during the 80’s. The Contra group was a military anti-communist group that was trying to topple the revolutionary Sandinista government. We’ve discussed at length their involvement during the Cold War, but what remains speculative and unclear is the CIA's involvement in the hippie and social movements of the 1960s. We know they surveilled and infiltrated several social movements at the time, and that, along with the FBI were conducting experiments with LSD through projects like MK-Ultra.

Some conspiracies claim that the CIA was also behind these social movements as a controlled opposition. Controlled opposition is when an opposing party or individual is perceived to be influenced or controlled by the ruling party or establishment. Modern protests usually work this way, as the governments realistically only allow for protests which do not threaten their power; all other protests are deemed illegal and can be handled differently. Controlling the opposition means you influence their thinking, their moves, and you allow them some space to think that they have some kind of power, while in reality, you’re the one in control. There’s no definitive proof about the CIA’s involvement in the social movements of the ’60s, and we don’t know what they’re up to today.

So here’s a speculation, a conspiracy theory if you will - modern hip-hop and rap is a psyop funded and exploited by the ruling class to influence and keep lower and middle class citizens in a cycle of violence, consumption and poverty. 

The image of rappers is largely fake and manufactured, and just like the CIA poured millions into showing and buying abstract paintings, so billions of dollars are being poured into the music industry to sell the American dream once more. These musical artists claim to come from nothing and to have climbed up to the top on their own, selling the idea that anyone can do it if they just work hard enough. The reward for pursuing your dreams is money, sex, drugs and rock’n’roll. The pursuit of fast and expensive cars is a false one, as most are leased. The money flexed in music videos is fake, and the attractive people are actors rented. 

Most, if not all of it, is a clever facadé. What remains true, however, is the violence, the drug abuse and the money it brings in. Just as abstract expressionism was culturally divisive and intellectually a clever thought of personal freedom and expression, so is the lifestyle of the modern rock star a flex of the surplus enjoyment brought by capitalism. The ideology behind it is clear as day - it’s materialistic, egotistical and consumptive. A new modern ideal. Who benefits from this image? It’s the watch makers, the jeweller behind the gold chains, and the ones who rent out sports cars - it’s not the consumers. The artists get a cut, either knowingly or unknowingly, sponsored by the people who promote this ideology, but ultimately, they’re just pawns. The big players remain faceless and in the shadows, reaping the real benefits of their psychological warfare. 

This glorification of petty crime, violence and abuse keeps the lower classes in check. They get thrown in prison, or they’re kept under control by drug abuse. They turn against each other, against rival gangs and other criminals, and the ruling class remains undisturbed. It becomes a circus, and all they do is chase that bread. But that’s just a theory.

A conspiracy theory.