Who decides which works shall be declared as great works of art? And who then benefits from such decisions? Throughout recorded history, rich and powerful patrons, either the nobility of the past, or the business titans of the present, have commissioned, supported or elevated to international posture, those artists that they deemed in keeping with their tastes, interests and politics. An upcoming project being produced at EZTV will explore the controversy, examine the conspiracy theories, and create a producion about one of the most fascinating chapters of the history of the so-called "Art World"- the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
I have always laughed at the phrase "The Art World", a phrase whose very arrogance alludes to the notion that human creativity is some sort of homogeneous entity, with unanimous beliefs, tastes and agendas. No, art is not like a "World", but more like a contiguous stream of "Neighborhoods", which like the neighborhoods we are used to, sometimes inter-relate with others, and far too often do not. These Art Neighborhoods ( "art-hoods" )manifest themselves most influentially as a consortium of commercial galleries, influencial private collectors, university galleries, auction houses, municipal governments, specialized magazines, festivals and most importantly, contemporary art museums. This consortium self-legitimizes it's art choices, and leaves little room for alternative opinions in its dogmatized 'official history'. The 'Art Neighborhood' that is most associated with the politically connected and powerful has become the official art currently taught in universities around the world. Art-hoods are as much an example of the prevailing culture, as are other cultural forms, such as film and music. Also, like film & music, the prevailing 'art-hood' culture is as much as part of the mainstream entertainment industry, as it is part of some fine-art aesthetic. It is no coincidence that Andy Warhol created Interview magazine, as a venue for pop culture.
Like the conventional neighborhoods that we are used to, some 'art-hoods' are affluent and most are not. Some have access to the politically pwerful, and most do not. Clearly those artists who are embraced by the previaling system are no real threat to that system, even if there exists the pretense that these artists are 'challenging' the system. Most are doing nothing more than decorating the prevailing culture's agenda. It is true that some of these artists are not doing this merely out of greed or ego, but in the belief that they are protecting a specific culture form demise.
In the pop culture mythology of conspiracy theories, one stands out as having possible evidnece to support the claims. There is intriguing evidence that in the recent past, the U.S. government conspired to promote some forms of contemporary art at the expense of diversity. It is difficult to demonize those whose decisions were based on a belief of protecting the world from an impending peril, yet the outcomes of these decisions, no matter how well intended, needs continuous review.
There is clear evidence that following the end of World War Two, and throughout the early days of the Cold War, U.S. government operatives, mainly working out of the CIA, deliberately and decisively influenced the writing of art history. With the CIA's support, exhibitions, and publications about certain contemporary artists, mainly those who became known as the "Abstract Expressionists" began to flourish. The taste for this work replaced the competing aesthetics of the time and became the official style of corporate America. Clearly some sort of an initiative was planned to annoint these few individuals with a historical priviledge that was not based an a thoroughly researched determination based soley on artistic merit.
These artists were, almost without exception, decidedly male, decidedly white and usually without affiliation with any organization. Although there were clear exceptions, these artists were stereo-typically represented as hard-drinking, womanizing and short-tempered individuals, who were easy to romanticize about in popular publications of the time, including LIFE and LOOK magazines and other periodicals. Many died before their time, by accident or suicide.
Internationally respected literary journals, such as ENCOUNTER, which presented modern American writers, were also later found to be venues supported in various ways, by the CIA.
It is alleged that an organization called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, funded and controlled by the CIA, acted throughout Europe during the Cold War, as a way to promote American Art values as a politically safe asthetic. Following the U.S. and corporate patron's displeasure with many European artist's tolerance of left-leaning political ideologies, a shift away from narrative, figurative, (and often political art) was fostered. Those few that could afford to purchase fine art, shifted their collecting tastes to work that would not be found embarassing if hung in the lobby of a large corporation, university, or other public space. Nelson Rockefeller's embarassment ( and ultimate destruction )with the overtly-leftist mural created by Diego Rivera for Rockefeller Center, would never be repeated. For an interesting take on this story ( and the cultural climate of that period), see filmmaker Tim Robbins' excellent and much overlooked film "The Cradle Will Rock".
Among the impacts of the CIA-run popularization of Abstract Impressionism, was the further decline of influence of Paris as the world's de facto art capital, and it's ultimate re-location to New York. This relocation to New York was no doubt already in process prior to the second world war. Powerful American families, who were already avid collectors of recent European art, became the brokers, and commercial beneficiaries of the shift to American artists. Just as the recent "dot.com" era, during which investment speculators greatly inflated the monetary value of seemingless worthless companies, a similar action took place in the rise of American Abstract Expressionism. Large collections of formally worthless paintings by unknown artists, became priceless collections controlled by the already rich families that declared these works as historically important.
The Rockefellers, the Guggenheims and the Whitneys all created temples for the new art, with their newly founded museums, either egotistically named after themselves, or in the case of the Rockefellers, simply called "the Museum of Modern Art". These museums initially ignored multi-cultural accomplishments, and fostered the promotion of a single style of artist- rugged, individualistic, decidedly American, and almost Ayn Rand-like in demeanor. While, no doubt, these kinds of artists most certainly existed ( and in fact were nurtured by their rich patrons ), many other forms of artistic expression were ignored. This over-looking of the many other contemporay forms of expression, make the art histories of that time almost meaningless.
The implications for creating a more accurate pluralistic and de-centralized art history is critically affected by the alleged actions descibed above. What really happened, and what do we really know about it? Many diverse cultural communities are creating teir own pieces to an art puzzle that is barely recognized as yet. Not just ethnic or political minorities, but also discrimination based on technology is also involved. For example, recent projects undertaken by digital artists, to create there own version of their history is a most promising step. Many of us believe that digital art is the most important innovation in art in many hundreds of years, and that its significance has been kept away from the general public by supporters of the older "object based" and "collector-oriented" aesthetics.
Of course, recent decades have seen a greater diversity displayed in our public museums, as well as in private collections. Still, very strong remnants of this Cold War- era thinking continue to influence the entire field of fine art. However, the culture- manipulators of the Cold War, who believed that by controlling visual art was to control culture, fortunately got it wrong. They never anticipated the cultural impact of the automobile, the portable radio, and Rock'N'Roll. It was through Rock music and its multi-cultural roots that American culture exported an unexpected philosophy, or tolerance, of peace and of understanding.
In 2005, EZTV will embark on a multi-media rtwork exploring these issues, as well as questioning the official art histories presented as de facto truth. We will be seeking collaborative involved from a variety of artists, performers and thinkers interested in exploring this fascinating story.
