It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Modern Art Was A CIA Weapon

page: 2
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I'd like to preface that mordern art is art, I am in no way trying to say that it is not. But, one cannot truely think outside the box if they can't even understand how the box is formed/created. Immpressionism and cubism IS considered classical art and not modern art due to the fact that they had classical art backgrounds. When I think of American artists I think of Winsor McCay, Norman Rockwell, John R. Neill,ect. And now, to think the CIA had a direct hand in destroying what could have been, just pisses me off even more.

Before the 40's and 50's artists used to have avenues to pursue art education from qualified instructors. Now you can actually go to an art school and have more talent than the teachers. This is not right in any way. Art intruction requires apprenticeship. Apprenticeship is a system of training a new generation of practitioners of a skill. Yet no American univerity even offers this type of training anymore. Modern art requires no apprenticeship as no real skill is haded down to the student. There is no point trying to advance ones creativity if you have no way of actually presenting that creativity in a viewable manner understood by those viewing it.

I can glean more information from a cave painting than from any of the modern artists. If something like a painting or sculpture requires more words to describe it than the painting or scupture itself, then the artist would have been better off as a writer/ philosophy major. Visual media fails as a means of expression when no major theme can be recognized by all that view it. Modern art is like the "double speak" of visual media. If the government likes something it probably sucks.
edit on 12/28/2010 by LordBaskettIV because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBaskettIV
 





But, one cannot truely think outside the box if they can't even understand how the box is formed/created.


Suppose for example a patron were to take the time to research an artists interests and influences, then there might be enough clues to form an interpretation. For example Bill Gates likes Davinci he bought the Leicester Codex in 1994 for $31 million. Now if we learn the first painting in the thread was a commissioned work for Bill Gates we might consider a Davinci quote.



The shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere, having been made at various times.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81
 


I'm not sure what you are really driving at? I'm not talking about the people who are viewing the artwork, but the artist themselves. How can an artist be "creative" if he doesn't have the nesseary tools to recreate his thoughts. Modern art is what happens. And doesn't really represent America they way they thought it would. The CIA killed classical art in this country as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBaskettIV
 


The works probably have real meaning for the Artists themselves. Unfortunately without a large shared "classic" pool of A priori imagery to draw from the work ends up too esoteric for a wider audience. Its a deep subject and I think you are claiming that the CIA is tampering with the artists training rather than the patrons ability to interpret?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81
 

Hey there Bordon81, I think that the type of art did not matter so much to the cia, other than it being new and different. This is what allowed them to launch the effort I think, as an attempt at reclaiming the art world so as to appear more advanced and "free?"
I am unsure if I think the cia would/did use Dali. You are right on with the "portals to the mind." Perhaps if
the same game was still going on, then yes surrealism could have been another attempt in this strategy, but the surrealist movement originated in Europe, so that would make it less likely to be on the cia minds?
Thanks for the reply...

spec



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBaskettIV
 



But, one cannot truely think outside the box if they can't even understand how the box is formed/created.

But if one is oblivious to there ever being a box, their aspirations unfold unperturbed, which is what happened in the beginning at some point. Before classical studies existed, someone had to experiment and explore to devise such methods and it is that process which allows genius and innovation to emerge. Granted, it is truly a loss to not consider and study the masters and classical techniques, as is with any art, one has to visit and understand the roots. However, at the same time and on the other side of the coin lies the open ended stratus of creative endeavors, where one can follow their own innate drive and application. I think it is unfair to compare classical and modern art, at least in a definitive way. Rather, I see them as parts to a whole, both in terms of function and form.
I also appreciate a more purist attitude on the subject and of course "good art" is hyper-subjective, as is art in itself.


And now, to think the CIA had a direct hand in destroying what could have been, just pisses me off even more.

Agreed, it is a shame that such an entity had influence on the natural progression, or lack of, things in the art world. It falls in line with my own personal premise that tptb do not want us to be sublime, expressive or contemplative through art, as it is consistently being dropped from academic programs.


Yet no American univerity even offers this type of training anymore.

And I don't think it is because lack of interest, but rather someone disqualifying it's importance. Or, are you implying that there is no interest? That could be too...



There is no point trying to advance ones creativity if you have no way of actually presenting that creativity in a viewable manner understood by those viewing it.

I would disagree a bit here. I believe there is appreciation, an audience and a market for abstract art, and there are those that like not knowing what they are looking at. Again, I don't separate the two in terms of right and wrong, better or worse, but just different and contemporary. The thing I personally like about abstract is that it is like a fingerprint, unique and truly representative of the individual.
My experience in the abstract market has been about people that are tired of seeing trees and flowers, or portraits and still life.
So again, I think they re both important aspects of art.


I can glean more information from a cave painting than from any of the modern artists.

I can appreciate that. I think they all offer different experiences too. The cave painting has so much associated history and social significance, a wonder in the world. A painting by Alex Gray also evokes some interesting reactions.
So obviously I am one of those balance type of peeps, always examining the flipside of things.
Thank you for your posts.

peace,
spec



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
The CIA also studied an artist who would incorporate his signature into his art, in this case it was his daughter's name I believe. So among the artwork would be the signature hidden in. So the CIA is studying this method undoubtedly for less than honorable intentions.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Was there any kind of tech or science or occultism that the allies had borrowed from Hitler (the mesmerizer) like so many other things when WWII ended? If yes what had the Communists acquired first that made the involved Western Intel begin a mad race for who would enslave the subconscious of the masses? What part has Hollywood played in this?

ARE THERE, PATTERNS, ALGORITHMS, VISUALS, a science that interacts with the neurons of the brain, timely to produce mass psychological alterations to the public? Beyond the term "brainwash" we all know and understand, IS THERE SOMETHING MORE SINISTER hidden behind all that "art"? Has the integration of anything similar been made much easier in our time and day with the aid of modern digital technologies, literally undetected even by experts?
edit on 29-12-2010 by spacebot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
They want to promote my art? come on CIA! I didn't know the A stood for Art, we're so stupid.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Heh, if some of you think that's interesting, this will blow your mind...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spacebot
 


Wow, I had not considered such spacebot, but if I had to guess I would say more likely than not eh?
Like television, art could have been used as some type of neuro-linguistic medium. I wonder too if this type of art was used to tee off the establishment of other countries, USSR in particular. Or, the cia could have just taken whatever was new and different at the time and ran with it, as an attempt of launching a new standard, and claiming responsibility for it. Who knows brother....

peace,
spec



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 



Hee hee, now that is interesting JN, hiding in plain sight. I wonder if the Bush's have any connection to that school?


peace,
spec
edit on 29-12-2010 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 

Hey star, do you have any links to that? Sounds interesting....
Thanks for the reply.

peace,
spec



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join