Sovrisk - alternative secondariness

[artcol]

here

I was born in Chita. Soon, our family moved to China. We lived in Manchuria. So my first artistic impressions - Chinese. Chinese landscape, thermos bottles, mats, the dragon, which represent the 50 people on New Year's holiday - Chinese kitsch. That's why I'm always open to something else. Then we lived a bit in Khabarovsk, and his father, a military lawyer, was transferred to Rostov-on-Don. We traveled through Moscow and a week staying in the capital. I was taken to the tomb, there still was Stalin, so I immediately saw the two leaders, in the Historical Museum and the Tretyakov Gallery. In the Tretyakov I really did not like. Rooms are small, the lighting is bad, all the dull, dark, dead. Living in China, I am very much looking movies: patriotic films about the great generals, about the great artists and composers. Because the static picture of me hid. After all, the Chinese all moving pictures. They are written differently, they have a moment of life, the length of events in time. And in the movies all the moves. In Russian the same painting XVIII-XIX centuries, I suppressed the deadly three-dimensional image in black and brown shadows, statics. The only thing that I liked while in the Tretyakov Gallery - a sculpture: every article can be circumvented because they seemed quite alive and moving.

     In his boyhood at the hands of times getting the magazine "America". They printed reproductions of paintings from American museums: Kandinsky, Klee, Chagall, - and American celebrities: Pollock, Mark Tobey. This roused the imagination. So I became a devotee of modern art, he painted the abstract watercolors. But then, after my mother's criticism, I burned them.

Читать дальше... 

     Somehow my mother we were in Leningrad, the Hermitage. And most importantly - have visited the top floor, where usually nobody goes: the Impressionists, Van Gogh, Matisse, Picasso. Suddenly I saw the original avant-garde - and they shocked me.

     Although the academicism I always felt and feel reverence. I am very grateful follower of the late Favorskogo great artist Dmitry Zylinski, whom I consider to be their teacher.

      Genetically relegate themselves to a group of GRL, the Society of Artists-Easel - they were socialist modernists. Between the fall of the avant-garde at the end of the Civil War and socialist realism was a great period of socialist modernism on the basis of neo. Were Moscow sotsmodernisty, mostly students Favorskogo and were Petrograd. They were the first truly Soviet artists differed from the later the Wanderers, who were sitting and waiting for who will win the civil war, therefore, whose portraits have to daub. The same Brodsky and Kerensky wrote, and Lenin. The Bolsheviks, who were most likely these artists malosimpatichny, but the Bolsheviks had won - and living it must ...

     

     Modern art - a product of cultural engineering CIA started 50th. It was created specifically against socialist realism, against the Soviet culture. After the war, Socialist Realism was very influential in Western Europe, Leger, for example, actually wrote the socialist-realist paintings: builders, workers, and picnics in nature - the art, open people's life, workers who fight for peace - it all happened. The Americans countered the natural expansion of Soviet humanistic culture, culture of the country-winner, the so-called New York school of abstract expressionists. These were imitators of the European avant-garde and modernist, in large numbers who came to America during the Second World War. For the most part they were imitators of the European Surrealists: Miró, Max Ernst ... Pop artist Robert Rauschenberg studied with former Bauhaus professor Josef Albers. Although Albers considered him a poor and mediocre student, virtually all of Rauschenberg - it bauhauzovskaya propaedeutics Albers: from used as independent works bauhauzovskih exercises for Option pop-art.

     It should be up to the 50th American art was very conservative and just old fashioned. On the American continent in the 20th-30th topped Mexico. Mexicans who were in fact the socialist realists, was invited to work in America, Ford and Rockefeller. Same Pollock was an assistant to Siqueiros.

     And now the provincial painting abstract expressionism, a local phenomenon, even for the U.S., the Americans fanned into a powerful cultural and political project. Conducted outreach exhibitions in Europe. At the same time from the closet of history took out the European avant-garde, which for many years in fact no longer existed. Prior to 1933 operated the Bauhaus, Albers in the 40th and Gropius taught in the U.S.. But this art is not concerned - design, architecture. We also have twenty years working VHUTEMAS, and some more avant-garde in the 60's taught in the Moscow Architectural Institute and the Art Institute.
   

     CONTEMPORARY ART, contemporary art - contemporary art is not us, it is not art, which makes contemporaries. This is a specific cultural invention which declared itself the heir vanguard. In Europe, all the advanced cultural policy fifties and sixties - a return, renewal of the avant-garde, neoavangard. For example, somewhere in Paris, found a German artist Vaulx, he studied at the Bauhaus, one of the latest releases. Gradually he lived in Paris, few people interesting, painted the picture, anticipate these most abstract expressionists. His paintings were better than American, were not so cheap, as the American abstract expressionism, with all due respect to his achievements.

     So the process of creating modern art was at first largely artificial. But he has received support from an advanced, anti-fascist intellectuals, because the avant-garde and modernism did not like Hitler, while psevdotraditsionnoe art became the official art of Nazi Germany. Hitler and Stalin at the same time, which is constantly trying to put on a par with Hitler announced the vanguard of the liquidators, while Vanguard has died a natural death: in Europe - after the First World War, and in Russia after the Civil War. And on this basis, the vanguard of declared anti-fascist and progressive, and any self-related tradition of art - the fascist. Although it is well known that many leading Nazis - for example, Goebbels - loved Expressionists, and Carl Schmitt, when his house was bombed, the only thing that saved - abstract paintings.

     A simple formula that all fall in line with the historical tradition of a fascist, and all anti-fascist avangardopodobnoe - works so far. Why the writer of the picture in keeping with the historical tradition of the artist for the enlightened Europeans and Americans today - a fascist, open or hidden. And what else? Vaughn wrote the artist a haystack - it means he "felkishe.
     

     So the aims of the founders of modern art have been defined. Perhaps they are still stored in the tribal memory of contemporary art. Looking from Russia, it is not very clear, just not visible. After all, modern art, we received a completed form, as a European art at the beginning of XVIII century, we have not worked on his creation. Why, for example, we do not understand the contents of the genre of still life, always carrying a message, culturally alien to the Russian people? Each still life laid true Counter-Reformation ideology - "Memento mori". You look at some flowers and fruit, and you realize that tomorrow they will wilt, fruit rot, and you yourself will die. That's what this art. But in Russia it is not very clear. Russia did not participate in the Reformation nor Counter-Reformation, so the Russian artist paints constantly out of place - put in a still life Budyonnovka cap, then sandals.

     So it is with contemporary art. Yet much has changed: gone "red decade" of France (1965-75), student and worker revolution and unrest throughout the world, the artists themselves transformed. Many of them are fairly radical social position. This is particularly felt in Latin America, where artists work with the poor and workers.

     On the other hand, there is a world system of modern art - huge international bureaucracy, museums, galleries, contemporary art center, etc. Huge and expensive system.

     You go to Bombay, and suddenly you see - the center of contemporary art. This center is in Moscow, and in almost every German town.

     Despite the external diversity of expression, media and the approaches contemporary art rather monotonous and conservative. It invested a lot of money and employing thousands of workers. The artist in this system - one of many. Regardless of the bureaucracy, out of a curator and critic, he - no. This "little Dutchman now sold some burgers, and then he was visited by a second Burgher and requested to sell the same. Now it is - a huge business, a huge industry, which can not be broken down. It is interested not only an artist but also the thousands of professionals of different profiles. The artist in this system - a pathetic lone craftsman.

     For Russia, the main problem is that modern art had to be entered as an art, so that it performs the same function, which performs the art in any society. This did not work, including the positions of people like Erofeev, who very arrogantly refers to a simple viewer for the viewer to an unsophisticated audience, who are unfamiliar with contemporary art, to a man who has yet to learn the art, with modern as well. For this viewer, even Malevich - negative riddle: the pier, and I do my best.

     And in order to write "Black Square" need more spiritual work. And it must really be a master, because "black box" - not just a square, it is a strong paintings. I do not do abstract painting, I consider myself an absolute realist. But for me it is the most important thing, my guiding star in the painting. And more than most of Malevich. Malevich himself not made of "Square" of recent findings.

 



Artwork by Vladimir Salnikov "Homeland Aviation" (2006).

     

     CONTEMPORARY ARTIST - it belongs to the institutions - to collectors, galleries, contemporary art centers, foundations, Biennale. Accordingly, the one taken in the turnover of bureaucrats and curators, becomes an artist of contemporary art.

     The modern artist can do anything - he can write, even naturalistic paintings. It is important to the context in which he gives them.

     Naked kings, fakirs complete. But in the traditional art enough of them.

    
 What is annoying in modern art - from it, may seem diverse - you can play music, write novels, to dig a pit, fly, still remains narrow, which is too orthodox tied to the experience of avant-garde. In the forefront, too, everything was - and performances, and "Letatlin, and fought, and danced, while in the van remained perspective. In modern art it is not. Like all the time mixing takes place the same balls in a lottery drum. Turned the drum. Leggy girl took out a ball - so, "performance", is now ten years performance will be considered the main art exhibit, funded, to glorify. Ten years later, another ball is removed from the drum guard.

     But modern art - this is living life big enough community. It is natural to have a good-bad, honest, thieves, there are rogues, but there are great artists. In order to separate the good from another installation, you certainly have some erudition. But it is acquired. How can you distinguish the good from the bad rock? Knowledge of Mozart and Rachmaninoff's not always help. Need a cultural experience. And, of course, need people to acquire it.

     There is a positive model of work - in Moscow is the State Center for Contemporary Art at the Zoological street. This clever and good policy, the NCCA is trying to adapt modern art to the viewer and the viewer in contemporary art. They drove a diverse collection of contemporary art throughout Russia, have made traveling exhibitions, discussions.

     But there are liberal idiots who are struggling with the church - perhaps because they think: believers sure to substitute the left cheek, in fact, they quarreled and contemporary art and society.

     Modern art must be embedded in a culture in public life, that it began to work as art, worked as the art of Russian realist, in the West in the late XIX century, the art of the Impressionists, in the XVII-XVIII centuries - Baroque. Check it decides to society the same problem. In reality, contemporary art - a simple and fairly clear. This is a misconception that it is heavily loaded. Comprehension of classical painting can be much harder for the average person.

     

     In my youth I was an ardent anti-Stalinist. When we lived in Georgia, my father was a prosecutor engaged in rehabilitation of victims of repression. But knowing that exposed the Iranian spy, and he - Professor chaeved and no spy was not - this one. But the whole context is important here - who does it, why it happened. If we carefully look at the almost three decades the Stalinist era, it is obvious that at any given moment, Stalin took a completely different position, playing different roles. But the perception prevails that Stalin 30 years was something like God of hosts, and all moving. This lack of understanding of the structure of power, how it has evolved from the chaos of the Civil War and beyond.

     I was a faithful follower of the Twentieth Congress, in the fourth grade trampled a portrait of Stalin and watered it with ink. Primitiveness, which professed anti-Stalinists, I'm like a child, was forgivable, but now, when there is a lot of data and can make sense of history, Stalin can not be summarily denied.

     Clearly, this history of the revolution and bloody revolution. And we like to consider the epoch at an angle of liberal democracy, which professes a "soft" violence.

     All of these processes, repression must specifically disassemble - how, what and why happened. When moving away from specifics, then immediately fall into archaism, and, ultimately, into the finished vulgarity.

     Stalin became a symbol of Russia. In the project "Name of Russia", he won his slowed down due to administrative resources. You can not protest against the views of the whole nation. Moreover, the sovereign power - the people of Russia. How can you consider yourself a democrat and deny the majority opinion? Indeed, for some time with the advent of liberal Russian people were naive, but not for long. It is on the political opinions that emanate from the Russian people, and we must navigate. Do not think that the thinking class has much more political insight or knowledge, this is not so. Bertolt Brecht once said that the bad taste of the masses much deeper than a good taste of the intelligentsia.

     A majority of our intellectuals prefer to simply accept, as is said today, others ready to discourse, but gives his own opinion. Form your own opinion - it's a colossal work. Otherwise it the intellectual conformism. But then I was not a intellectual, and herd animals. Or network.

     

     For many years we have struggled with modern art as the ideological enemy. On the one hand, it was justified. But, on the other hand, it was necessary to connect to it and pull it off. There have been many progressive-minded artists. And here in the spirit of Plekhanov brushed aside, they say, bourgeois decadence - and all ...

     The Russian Federation claims to great power status. But from the standpoint of modern art - a backwater, or even worse Finland Estonia.

     Even socialist realism, which was against the socialist modernism of the twenties and thirties weak phenomenon at the international level was still good art. Therefore, in defiance of him and created a contemporary art. And now there are no ideas that might inspire. Yes, we will follow democracy, we the students - if they say our leaders. We think of ourselves as the periphery, is actually the periphery. And we will, until we do not have their fresh ideas. Original phenomena were the Moscow Conceptual Art, "Sots" art and Actionism nineties. The last decade - the emptiness, the solid degradation. What can I say, if our state is unable to provide the nation with a fire extinguisher.

     As someone once said of Hemingway: "The average writer, but for him all the power of the United States of America.

     Modern art should be inscribed in the social context, should lose the character of the enemy's hands. It should cease to be art for the comprador youth. In Russia lacks normal people who go to exhibitions, participate in discussions. Russian contemporary art need other ideologues, and other leaders. In China, by the way, modern artists do not take the anti position. The wise leadership of the CPC, in contrast to the Soviet leaders did not go for confrontation. There is there quite legally, there is no culture war is not going inside. We also still ongoing cultural civil war.

     I believe that modern art could well be national. In the words of Mayakovsky, a machine gun - he is a machine gun, it is important who shoots out of it. Modern art could serve the people of Russia and be a normal art. The main condition - the correct and sane politician.

[SergeiSK]

I have this article artist Vladimir Salnikov liked. A sober and objective view. Especially on these things:

Сообщение от artcol

CONTEMPORARY ART, contemporary art - contemporary art is not us, it is not art, which makes contemporaries. This specific cultural invention, which declared itself the vanguard of an heir.

Сообщение от artcol

Russia did not participate in the Reformation nor Counter-Reformation, so the Russian artist paints constantly out of place - put in a still life Budyonnovka cap, then sandals.

Exactly! And Mickey Mouse icon puts too.

Сообщение от artcol

But there are liberal idiots who are struggling with the church - perhaps because they think: believers sure to substitute the left cheek, in fact, they quarreled and contemporary art and society.

Сообщение от artcol

Stalin became a symbol of Russia. In the project "Name of Russia", he won his slowed down due to administrative resources. You can not protest against the views of the whole nation. Moreover, the sovereign power - the people of Russia. How can you consider yourself a democrat and deny the majority opinion?

Сообщение от artcol

original phenomena were the Moscow Conceptual Art, "Sots" art and Actionism nineties. The last decade - the emptiness, the solid degradation.

And like the answer Salnikava critics of his article. This, incidentally, and here there are:
"You've lived in the backwoods, judging by your statements, primarily in the domestic, domestic backwater."

[Posav]

[artcol]

[Кирилл Сызранский]

artcol, except that-

Modern art - a product of cultural engineering CIA early fifties.

, there drugayu hypothesis of a "modern art"-an alien.
Aliens irradiated earthlings from their UFO and all of this contemporary art emerged.
The West had long been written and said.
But how can I do?
 There is still only one proven tool-caps of the foil.

[Art-ort]

Good to see the sincere reflections on art, and I would even say "much suffering." But somehow I got the impression that the author is slightly "shuttered" to contemporary art and not his vidit.Imenno from the fact that he perceives it as a kind of chaos and bustle of mediocre, but I'm quite sure I can say that in Russia now, there are certain stylistic features of art (even in easel painting) all of the originality of which will be visible and appreciated only in retrospect vremeni.Vozmozhno my confidence is due to the fact that I live "inside" of art, while the author was watching him "outside".

[artcol]

Сообщение от Art-ort

Precisely because of what he perceives it as a kind of chaos and bustle of mediocre, but I'm quite sure I can say that in Russia now, there are certain stylistic features of art (even in easel painting) originality is all that will be visible and appreciated only in retrospect.

Example?

Сообщение от Art-ort

Perhaps my confidence comes from the fact that I live "inside" of art, while the author was watching him "outside".

The author is also an artist, in principle.

Added after 6 minutes

Сообщение от Cyril Syzran, 1250671

artcol, besides this, there is another hypothesis of "modern art"-an alien.
Aliens irradiated earthlings from their UFO and all of this contemporary art emerged.
The West had long been written and said.
But how can I do?
 There is still only one proven tool-foil hats.

What are UFOs? There is no mystery - just business.
Councils have invested in the money and had a department of corre-rd in the CPSU Central Committee, and the U.S. have invested well, who's been doing this I do not know.

[Art-ort]

"The author is also an artist, in principle."

[Posav]

Yeah, perhaps, leave, COP, a cap of foil itself, and we will explore the machinations of the CIA.


http://win.ru/win/2204.phtml
Taming the "Left" artists

Carefully designed principles doctrine of "cultural war" against the USSR, and after weighing all the pros and cons of the conspirators have decided to act but to act in secret. Of course, external cause of secrecy may be called, for example, the opposition of some influential members of Congress. Frances Sanders writes: "All this would be minimized, if it were put to a democratic vote. In order to maintain transparency, we had to keep it secret. " This again was the same great paradox of American strategy: "to encourage the art created in a democracy (and lifted her expression), itself a democratic process had to be set aside.

So the CIA to go into battle, having the ranks is not some kind of disciplined, or loyal fighters. Intelligence skillfully used initially Leftist, anarchist-minded, seemed to be quite awkward to manipulate Bohemians.

Читать дальше... 

Patronage against the leftist artists from the "capitalist elite" before, as a rule, ended in failure. Everyone remembers the words were Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, when she was asked to support the Mexican revolutionary, Diego Riviera (who even sang the "Death gringo!" At the door of the American Embassy). In response to this request, the wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.. said that the Reds no longer be red, "if we gave them artistic recognition." Many then condemned the statement. And so, after some time, at Rockefeller MoMA (Museum of Modern Art, the Museum of Modern Art) was held solo exhibition Riviera, the second solo exhibition in the history of MoMA. In 1933, Rockefeller made Riviera a special order: to paint murals just built Rockefeller Center. Every day, checking the work of the Riviera, Nelson drew attention to one of the figures clearly resembled Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. He politely asked her to remove the Riviera. Riviera politely declined. By order of Nelson fresco surrounded by guards, and the Riviera was given a check for his entire fee (21,000 dollars) and gave up his future services. In February 1934 nearly finished mural destroyed jackhammers.

Although this particular example of philanthropy toward the left and was unsuccessful, the idea is not buried. Prominent figures from the establishment continued to believe that the Left should support the artists and hoped that the political buzz around the artist can suppress jingle coins sponsor. In a famous article entitled "Avant-Garde and Kitsch," Clement Greenberg (art critic, who made the most of all for the glorification of abstract expressionism) clearly outlined the ideological reasons for deciding to accept sponsorship from an enlightened patron. Published in «Partisan Review», in 1934, this article still remains a symbol of faith for supporters of the elitist and anti-Marxist perception of modernism. Avant-garde, wrote Greenberg, abandoned "those to whom it actually belongs - our ruling class." In Europe it has been traditionally provided support for "the elite of the ruling classes ... from which he cut himself, but which remains forever tied the umbilical cord of gold". In the United States, Greenberg argued, should dominate the same mechanism.


Shot one, a lot of goals

Here you can find a really deep connection between abstract expressionism and the cultural cold war. According to this principle, the CIA and has to work together with private entrepreneurs. "When it comes to Abstract Expressionism, I am tempted to say that he was ever invented by the CIA just to see what happens in New York and London's Soho in the next day - joking CIA officer Donald Jameson before proceeding to serious explanation of the involvement of the CIA. - We realized that this kind of art has nothing in common with socialist realism, Socialist realism can make look even more stylized, rigid and limited than it actually is. And it was used in several exhibitions. Moscow then very sharply condemned all forms that deviate from its own hard samples. Thus, it can be done quite adequate and accurate conclusion, that everything they criticize so much and arbitrarily, in any case it is necessary to support. Of course, this kind of support can be made only through the organization or operation of the CIA with the help of two or three intermediaries, so that later there was no need to launder the reputation of Jackson Pollock, say, or do anything to bring these people to cooperate with the CIA. They were supposed to be at the very end of the chain. I do not think had any serious relations between us and Robert Mozeruellom, for example. These relationships could not and should not have been closer, because many of the artists have no respect for the government and no one - to the CIA. If you want to use people who somehow feel closer to Moscow than to Washington, it is better to act in this way. "

So, proceeding from the very style of action, dispassionate, and professional calibrated, but nonetheless quite exciting, it can be assumed that "the Council on psychological strategies" (see about him below) has developed a well thought-out combination to the last detail. Functionary Sami felt her obvious military advantage. Glad that strange joy that is unique to the military (who have achieved, for example, income for a brand-new weapons warheads), the CIA began to move on art market its destructive product.

Perhaps, for the enthusiasm were quite objective reasons. After all, except that curb tsereushniki own "Left" artists (disloyal, most) are actually corrupt, most of them through the mediation of art magnates U.S., they managed to create a new world of "artistic mainstream" and send it to activity in the right direction. They also found a "common language" with the European bourgeois elite who, through yesterday's "degenerate art", and today through the "Contemporary Art", sought more disown defeated Hitler and the likes of Stalin (who had sympathized with figurative style). In general, anti-Soviet "conspiracy" in modern art with the direct intervention of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States successfully implemented.


Plans manipulation contemporary art

It is interesting to see to it, as lining up the sequence scheme, by which the CIA was involved in the art process. MoMA (Museum of Modern Art) was at a certain distance from the Intelligence and therefore fit as a plausible cover. Meanwhile, the study commissions and boards of MoMA reveals an enormous number of links with the intelligence.

The most serious was personally Nelson Rockefeller, who headed the government in wartime intelligence agency for Latin America. It was called the Coordinator of Internal Affairs of the U.S. (CIAA). This office, among other things funded visiting the exhibition "Contemporary American Art". Nineteen of these exhibitions held MoMA.

As a board member of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, an expert organization dedicated, according to a government contract, foreign affairs, Rockefeller led the most influential minds of the period when evolved direction of U.S. policy abroad. In the early fifties he had received information about secret operations of Allen Dulles and Tom Braden, who later wrote: "I knew that Nelson is the best aware of what we do." A reasonable proposition, given that Nelson was in the Eisenhower in 1954 the post of special adviser on strategy for the Cold War (replacing S. D. Jackson), and was chairman of the Planning Coordination, keeps track of all the Council's decisions on national security, including secret CIA operation .

A close friend of Rockefeller, John Hay Whitney named Jock, had been a long time member of the Board of MoMA, as well as its president and chairman of the board. Educated at Groton, Yale and Oxford, Jock turned his considerable inheritance in a lot of money subsidizing young companies, Broadway plays and Hollywood movies. As director of cinema at Rockefeller CIAA in 1942, Jock oversaw production of such films as Disney «Saludas Amigos», just a crowded American goodwill. In 1943, he worked in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). And in 1944, Jock was captured in southern France by German soldiers and loaded on a train heading west, but he managed to make a bold escape. After the war he founded the firm of J. H. Whitney & Co. as the company established to distribute free enterprise system by providing financial support to the new, undeveloped and risky business, for which would be difficult to attract investment capital to the more conservative channels. His high-profile partner was William H. Jackson, a friend of Jock Polo, who together served as Deputy Director of the CIA. Jock had influence in the Council on psychological strategies and found "a lot of opportunities to be useful for the CIA."

Another link in the chain was William Barden, who had all started to work in the museum in the position of chairman of the Advisory Council in 1940. Originating from the Commodore Vanderbilt, Barden was like a model of the entire ruling class during the Cold War. Occupying a wartime post of Minister of Aviation, he was still working at Rockefeller CIAA. Also very rich and deserved reputation as a "capitalist of the first rank in the venture business. As the leader of many organs and even quasi tseerushnogo Fund Farfilda (he was its president), Barden looked like a man who likes to be on the first film. In 1947 he was appointed Chairman of the Collector's Committee of the museum, and in 1956 he became president of MoMA.

During the presidency of the affairs of the museum Barden worked Rene d'Arnonkurt. Functions of the Braden consisted mainly of "proshtampovke ready documents. This gave d'Arnonkurtu space to exercise their considerable talents gray eminence among those grouped around the museum. Six feet five inches tall, 230 pounds, was born in Vienna, a descendant of the direct and indirect through a whole heap of Central European nobles, succeeded in the role of the chamberlains and officers of a whole heap of Dukes Lauren, graphs and Luxembourg Habsburg emperors - d'Arnonkurt was an extraordinary figure. In 1932 he emigrated to the United States and throughout the war he worked in the department of arts in the CIAA. Then Nelson invited him to work in his museum, and in 1949 made a director.

D'Arnonkurt believed that "modern art in its infinite variety and the continuous search of" a "main character" of democracy, and the 50-ies openly lobbied Congress for funding the cultural campaign against communism. Although Braden and asserted that "the guys from the MoMA chose to resolve their cases on the spot, but D'Arnonkurt, in his opinion, likely was an agent of the CIA in the museum. Definitely d'Arnonkurt consulted in the Coordinating Council Operations National Security Council (which replaced the Board of psychological strategies). He also made regular reports to the State Department. D'Arnonkurt, like his ancestors, "showed the ability to become indispensable for the following one after another, and sometimes for several at once, patrons".

William Paley, who inherited «Congress Cigar Company», was another trustee of MoMA, with close contacts in the world of intelligence. Paley was a close friend of Allen Dulles. With CBS - the network, the owner of which he was, Paley provides a cover for CIA officers, some, as did Henry Luce (also a member of the Board of Trustees of MoMA) in their empire Time-Life. In the best of times these relations CBS correspondent annually invited to dinners and private briefings, arranged for senior officials of the CIA. These dinners - "have become a tradition for a good meeting table and with a good cigar" - took place in the house Dulles or a private club "Alibi" in Washington. One CBS administrator said the involvement of Paley in the CIA: "This is the only issue on which his memory skid.

Here are a few names, without which described the scheme would have been incomplete. Joseph Verner Reed, for example, is a trustee of MoMA and simultaneously served in the Farfield Foundation. Was he and Gardner Kovles. It was them and Jahnke Fleshmen. Was he and Cass Canfield. Ovett Culp Hobby, a founding member of MoMA, the Committee met in the council of free Europe, and authorized the CIA to use their family foundation as a cover. When she served as Minister of Health, Education and Social Welfare in the Eisenhower, her assistant was listed as a kind of Joan Braden, who worked previously for Nelson Rockefeller. Joan was married to Tom. Tom, before you join the CIA, also worked on Nelson Rockefeller from 1947 to 1949 as Executive Secretary of the Museum of Modern Art.


"Abstract Expressionism: weapon of the Cold War"

As Gore Vidal once observed: "In our unexpectedly Jacobin republic many mutual acquaintances that anything was not surprised." Of course, we can say that this coincidence slightly open except that behind the scenes of American power at the time. Then you can argue that even if all these people knew each other when they are socially and even formally been linked to the CIA, it does not give grounds to assert that they conspired with each other in promoting a new American art.

However, the interdependence of these relationships have long been accusations MoMA creates a semi-official ties with the secret government program of cultural war. These rumors, in 1974 first raised the Eva Cockcroft, in his article in the magazine Artforum ", called" Abstract Expressionism: weapon of the Cold War. " It concluded that "the relationship between cultural politics of the Cold War and the success of abstract expressionism is no accident ... They then deliberately forged by many influential figures who controlled the policy of the museum and defending the civilized tactics of the Cold War, conceived for flirting with European intellectuals." Moreover, Cockroft, said: "If we talk about cultural propaganda, the cultural apparatus of the CIA, and the operation of programs MoMA were very similar and mutually supportive.

"I do not need to do anything to promote Pollock or anyone else - confessed Lawrence de Neufvill - I do not even remember when I first heard of him. But I remember that Jock Whitney and Allen Dulles agreed that they should do with contemporary art, once waived by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps it can be called "mutual support". At first glance, evidence of a formal agreement between the CIA and the MoMA no. In fact, it simply was not necessary - it is understood by way of the development of initiatives in the institutional structures of the United States.

Dionysius Kunzhin

[Art-ort]

Posav, "Artcol you about pancakes, and you him about the cake" People can control the cost of art, but can not control themselves iskusstvom.Neuzheli Nouveau style in the world would be absent, if they should not pay for it? Or Style Empire did not appear to "Reflections from Artcol much deeper and more interesting than the political intrigue scheme vremyanschikov which can be seen from the above your article.