I’d like you to explain how covertly supporting creative stuff, usually without the knowledge of its creators, can possibly make it less creative. What, do you think that because America’s cultural potential was trumpeted by this agency or that, it actually deceived the public about its merit or something? (For the record, I think that the CIA is a criminal conspiracy in most of its well-known aspects. And Hitler ate sugar!)
If that was not your intended meaning, please rephrase it.
I’d like you to explain how covertly supporting creative stuff, usually without the knowledge of its creators, can possibly make it less creative.
Only the sources of money were hidden. The support itself was quite visible, see Konkvistador’s linked article. That attracts more wannabes, bringing the average quality down.
What, do you think that because America’s cultural potential was trumpeted by this agency or that, it actually deceived the public about its merit or something?
If the linked article is correct, the CIA did more than merely trumpet Abstract Expressionism. They arranged funding (e.g., for exhibitions) that would have otherwise not been present, which does indeed signal greater merit than was actually the case.
The apparent success of AE has been something of a mystery to me, but now I know part of the reason why it succeeded. TL; DR: “artistic merit” is signalling.
They arranged funding (e.g., for exhibitions) that would have otherwise not been present, which does indeed signal greater merit than was actually the case.
But, back then, there was a huge bias against all avant-garde/unconventional art present in the U.S.! Surely the CIA’s promotion effort could hardly outbalance the prevailing cultural attitudes of the time.
You’ve shifted the locus from “[the CIA] deceived the public about its merit...” to “Surely the CIA’s promotion effort could hardly outbalance the prevailing cultural attitudes of the time.”
I’d like you to explain how covertly supporting creative stuff, usually without the knowledge of its creators, can possibly make it less creative. What, do you think that because America’s cultural potential was trumpeted by this agency or that, it actually deceived the public about its merit or something? (For the record, I think that the CIA is a criminal conspiracy in most of its well-known aspects. And Hitler ate sugar!)
If that was not your intended meaning, please rephrase it.
Only the sources of money were hidden. The support itself was quite visible, see Konkvistador’s linked article. That attracts more wannabes, bringing the average quality down.
If the linked article is correct, the CIA did more than merely trumpet Abstract Expressionism. They arranged funding (e.g., for exhibitions) that would have otherwise not been present, which does indeed signal greater merit than was actually the case.
The apparent success of AE has been something of a mystery to me, but now I know part of the reason why it succeeded. TL; DR: “artistic merit” is signalling.
But, back then, there was a huge bias against all avant-garde/unconventional art present in the U.S.! Surely the CIA’s promotion effort could hardly outbalance the prevailing cultural attitudes of the time.
You’ve shifted the locus from “[the CIA] deceived the public about its merit...” to “Surely the CIA’s promotion effort could hardly outbalance the prevailing cultural attitudes of the time.”