There is much speculation over the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and the funding of modern art in America during the 1950’s and 60’s. Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power,” - an idea of using private and voluntary groups to culturally attract other countries & populations by ‘getting others to want what you want.’[1] Abstract Expressionism was the most significant form of modern art propelled into international acclaim during the 50's and 60's, contrasting Soviet realism and their ‘straightjacketed’ art forms.[2] The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) gave this movement a stage, whilst organisations such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) and the Farfield Foundation propelled Abstract Expressionism with sponsorships. Frances Stonor Saunders, one key revisionist historian, notes there is a key link between these organisations and the CIA.[3] Saunders, as well as Robert Burstow and Eva Cockcroft, go as far to say that modern art was used as a ‘weapon’ by the CIA against Soviet Russia as well as the communist satellite states.[4] It is crucial to examine why the CIA funded Abstract Expressionism, how they did it; and ultimately their strengths, weaknesses and controversy as perceived by traditional and revisionist historians regarding the CIA’s involvement.
Firstly, it must be understood what a ‘culture war’ means, and why the CIA, if at all, would want to fund Abstract Expressionism in the 1950’s and 60’s. According to David Anfam, it is easy to see why the CIA wished to promote Abstract Expressionism.[5] ‘It’s a very shrewd and cynical strategy … it showed that you could do whatever you liked in America.’[6] Anfam explains that the US were perceptive, however self-indulgent in their means to propel Abstract Expressionism. This epitomises the U.S. into wanting to be the most ‘high culture’ country in the world, showing their self-indulgent, cynical approach.[7] It proved to the rest of the world, notably Communist Russia and Eastern Europe, that the U.S. was the most liberal and culturally experimental country in the world. Art critic, Alistair Sooke states that the movement was useful to foil Russia’s official Soviet Realist style.[8] This demonstrates America’s shrewd and perceptive approach by promoting Abstract Expressionism, in hopes to assert soft power. Saunders further notes that Russian art was ‘strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket.[9] When contrasted with Abstract Expressionism, it proved the U.S. had a vast individual freedom.[10] Saunders interestingly notes that this new artistic movement could be used as ‘proof of the creativity and the cultural power of the U.S.’[11] The U.S. saw an opportunity to perceptively contrast the straightjacketed and formal approaches of art in Soviet Russia. Below is a piece by Russian realist painter, Mikhail Chepik “Flowers to Stalin,” 1951 and American expressionist painter, Jackson Pollock “Convergence”, 1952.[12][13] Although these pieces were early on in the Cultural Cold War, it is important to understand and note the stark contrasts of Soviet realism and Abstract Expressionism.
The CIA noticed one very crucial fact about Abstract Expressionism: it was the polar opposite of socialist realism.[1] Jack Pollock’s work was ‘loud, brash, unrefined, and unapologetic.’[2] Abstract Expressionism was fundamentally American and there was nothing else like it in the world.[3] This explains why the CIA would have utilized a non-conformist art form and used it to tease the culturally oppressed and deprived communists in Europe. There is some speculation that after the death of Soviet Union leader, Joseph Stalin in 1953, that there was a ‘thaw’ in Soviet culture with the introduction of new Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev.[4] However, The Moscow Times reports in an article in 2012 that:
‘Khrushchev is remembered by Russians for banning works that did not conform to the Communist Party's notion that art should be straightforward, realistic and appeal to workers and peasants.’[5] This further instils why the U.S. and CIA would have wanted to capture the interest of a country shrouded by censorship and oppression.
Hugh Wilford also raises awareness of the situation occurring domestically within the U.S. Wilford notes that the CIA was ‘dismayed’ by the threat of McCarthyism.[6] Joseph McCarthy had injected a “Red Scare” of communism among high officials, creating an almost ideological civil war within the U.S. The CIA feared the “red scare” would hinder ‘America’s image abroad’ as well as some of the ‘congressional witch-hunters turning their attention to the Agency itself.’[7] This asserts even more reason as to why the boom of not just Abstract Expressionism, but forms of music and literature were also being used to wage a culture war against communist enemies.
With the understanding of why the U.S. and the CIA wanted to fund modern art to wage a culture war in the 1950’s and 60’s, we must now establish how. One of the most key funding bodies was the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The CCF was founded in 1950 in which they became the most artistic patrons in world history, sponsoring an unprecedented range of cultural activities.[8] The CCF was based in Paris, which is interesting to note, as it was the ‘citadel of western European Cold war neutralism.’[9] This could be considered a tactic by the U.S., as placing their headquarters of the CCF in central mainland Europe shrewdly allowed the U.S. to have a closer platform to spread their cultural liberalism to the USSR. Further instances of the U.S. instilling their culture dominance within Europe was evident within the years of 1954 - 1962. For instance, MoMA bought the U.S. pavilion in Venice Biennale and took sole responsibility for the exhibitions held there. This was one of the most important of international cultural, political art events where the Soviet Union and other European countries competed for cultural honors.[10] Wilford makes claim to the current revisionist view that the CCF was a programme part of the CIA efforts to “showcase” U.S. high culture.[11] By the U.S. buying out key culture areas in Europe it reasserted a political control over art, ultimately winning an upper hand on culture dominance over the Soviets and Eastern Europe.
It must be understood the power and significance the CCF had in order to instil a culture dominance within Europe. In 1953 there was a Festival for Modern Music in France, in which the Boston Symphony Orchestra perform their rendition of Igor Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring . This marked a huge significance as The Boston Symphony Orchestra was reported to bring more acclaim for the U.S. than John Foster Dulles or Dwight D. Eisenhower could have bought with one hundred speeches.[12] Proving that culture held greater influence and impact than any politician or political motive, suggesting even more reason as to why the CIA utilised art, media and culture to lure their oppressed axis. This also bought the establishment of the Farfield Foundation as a ‘non-profit organisation’ that would ‘financially aid groups and organisations that engaged in cultural advances.’[13] With these advances in must be recognised that these organisations held great successesl in promoting a corpus of U.S. arts culture. The CCF financed several high-profile exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the ‘50s, including “The New American Painting”, which toured Europe between 1958 and 1959.[14] In 1952 at another Paris festival for “Masterpieces of the Twentieth Century” established a major presence in European cultural life, in which James John Sweeny from MoMA advisory committee stated:
‘“On display will be masterpieces that could not have been created nor who’s exhibition would be allowed by such totalitarian regimes as Nazi Germany or present day Soviet Russia and her Satellites.”’[15]
This quote highlights Anfam’s earlier argument of the U.S’s own self-indulgent, cynical strategy. It showcases how overt sponsors, like Sweeny from MoMA - ultimately linked to the CIA, were being to prove that modern art was used for political means. Further instances of the CIA funding other exhibitions like this is relevant in 1952. The CIA, through the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, gave MoMA a five year grant to fund the “International Program.”[16] This programme was used to loan many of MoMA’s paintings to European entities.[17] By 1956, 33 full international exhibitions had been organized for Abstract Expressionism.[18] Furthermore, MoMA collaborated with congress, in which bought access to the most prestigious art institutions of Europe: Palais des Beaux-Arts of Belgium, Switzerland’s Museum of Modern Art, London ICA, Kaiser Friedrich museum in Berlin and Galeria Nationala de arta moderna la Roma.[19] The U.S had Europe in the palm of their hand regarding cultural advances and the promotion of Abstract Expressionism. It is evident, with this programme, that the government and high art institutions, such as MoMA, were working hand in hand. Suggesting further to the revisionist ideas that the CIA was affiliated with promoting modern art to wage a culture war.
Parallel to this funding, in 1954 an exhibition for young painters was sponsored by the Farfield Foundation, presented by Julius Fleischman.[21] The foundation had donations from the CIA, who supplied cash prizes to awarding artists such as Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko.[20] The Tate Gallery in London complained they could not afford to bring such exhibitions to the UK; this inspired Fleischman to ‘stump up the cash so that the (young painters) exhibition could travel to Britain.’[22] This leads to an extremely relevant point, as Sooke notes, British abstract painters, such as John Hoyland, ‘were shaped by America’s spymasters.’[23] Sooke’s point here suggests that it was the CIA’s funding that propelled Abstract Expressionism it into acclaim, in turn had the ability to influence British artists. Despite the U.S. wanting to prove their high culture to their communist axis, they were also influencing their allies, propelling a global phenomenon of American Modern art. By the U.S. influencing their allies in Europe they were creating a wider and bigger scope to assert their “soft power.”
In now understanding why and how the CIA advanced Abstract Expressionism, the failures and controversy’s surrounding it need to be acknowledged. One key controversy surrounding the CIA’s involvement of Abstract Expressionism is that, as Saunders noted in 1995, the CIA had ‘manipulated Abstract Expressionism’ into a ‘weapon’.[24] This is in keeping with revisionist historians Burstow’s and Cockcroft’s earlier argument. Although this metaphor of 'weapon' was designed to cripple Soviet culture and inspire its people to resist the restraints of communism, it can be argued this 'weapon' wounded the U.S. also. Gordon Johnston highlights that the ‘failure with using cultural art and progression through art is that it’s all political.’[25] Johnston’s argument importantly explains the crippling affect of promoting art for political advancement, is manipulating art for the wrong reasons. This draws in Anfam’s argument, again, that by the CIA promoting Abstract Expressionism to prove their ‘high culture’, it is a ‘cynical’ approach.[26] In Johnston’s argument he uses Aaron Copland, an American composer, to highlight that there is a difference between ‘writing music to satisfy himself, and writing against a vocal and militant opposition.’[27] With this view in mind, it is evident that the CIA and government officials had no care for art in its expressive, non-conformist style or inspiration, but purely for its political upper hand. Burstow’s states ‘no one in the CIA knew the difference between socialist realism and finger painting.’[28] This can be said for the great majority of Americans during the 50’s and 60’s as they ‘disliked or even despised modern art.’[29] They knew that there was no way that the Soviets and their rigid system would have ever embraced Abstract Expressionism.’[30] Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the CIA particularly targeted Abstract Expressionism.[31] Argues that the CIA did not appreciate the art itself, but only its political advancement.
Furthermore Johnston acknowledges that Abstract Expressionism was not the be all and end all of the U.S. high culture dominance, and that it ‘was only one facet of a wide ranging selection of work.’[32] Popular culture exports from the Soviet Union were ballet, particularly Swan Lake and Russian folk dance.[33] Therefore it could be argued that Russia was not in competition for art, but dance. This more than adequately counter weighted the Marko’s and Pollock’s.[34]
The second controversy comes at a more basic level: did the CIA actually fund Abstract Expressionism to wage a culture war? Despite revisionist historians claiming, more recently after Stoner’s publication of Who Paid the Piper? in 1999, that it was the CIA who was linked to sponsorships; it is evident that in 1967 the New York Times had revealed that a liberal anti-communist magazine had been indirectly funded by the CIA.[35] The CIA were evidently funding other areas of media, so why not modern art? Sooke questions whether artists such as Pollock, consciously or not, propagandist for the US government?[36] And if so are the artists to blame as much as the corporations? This argument often lays to waste as art critics and high officials such as Irving Sandler argue that this is completely untrue: ‘“There was absolutely no involvement of any government agency.”’[37]
Saunders bites back that this was a conspiracy for decades ‘but now it is confirmed as a fact.’[38] Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko were all used as ‘weapons’ by the CIA.[39] Anfam also argues that it is ‘a well-documented fact’ that the CIA designated Abstract Expressionism in their propaganda war against Russia.[40] Michael McBride in 2017 interestingly argues that the CIA ‘made Jackson Pollock rich and De Kooning and Rothko household names, ultimately arguing that they won the cold war.[41]’ McBride seems to be the most congratulatory in regards to the CIA’s efforts of promoting Abstract Expressionism in winning a culture war. However relevant this comment, it needs to be recognised that the CIA manipulating and abusing Abstract Expressionism for their own political advancement should not be celebrated, as Saunders and Johnston would agree. In respects to the historiography it is evident that the CIA did fund Abstract Expressionism, despite that being a positive or negative feature.
In establishing the key areas of why, how and the controversy surrounding the CIA promoting Abstract Expressionism, this essay concludes how the CIA waged a culture war. The threat of McCarthyism acted as a catalyst in aiding the CIA to wage a culture war in fear of their image crumbling both domestically and internationally. The U.S. lusted to culturally control the USSR and her satellites through soft power, in hopes to win over the censored and oppressed and ultimately resist their biggest fear: communism. The CIA had many funding bodies such as the Farfield foundation, MoMA and the CCF to fund cultural operations. With significant historiography and facts, it can be concluded that the CIA did fund modern art. By the CIA manipulating and using credible artists, such as Jackson Pollock, to use as propaganda for their political Cold War is saddening, however it is argued to have been yet another facet into winning the Cold War as a whole. The U.S. wanted to win the Cold War, not just through political and military strength but through culture also, Abstract Expressionism was just another victim.
[1] Michael R. McBride, “How Jackson Pollock and the CIA Teamed Up to Win The Cold War.” Medium.com. October 15, 2017. (Accessed December 13, 2018.)
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “Russian Art & Soviet Nonconformist Art.” Zimmerli Art Museum. (Accessed December 13, 2018.)
[5] Alexander Zemlianichenko “Manezh Re-Examines Khruschev Outrage of 1962.” The Moscow Times. Dec. 21 2012 (Accessed December 13, 2018).
[6] Hugh Wilford. “Secret America: the CIA and American Culture. Bigsby, Christopher, ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to Modern American Culture. Cambridge Companions to Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 286.
[7] Ibid., p. 286.
[8] Hugh Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer: p. 101/102.
[9] Ibid.,p. 101/102.
[10] Eva Cockcroft, “Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War,” Vol. 15, no. 10, June 1974, p 39- 41. (accessed December 13, 2018)
[11] Hugh Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer, p. 101/102.
[12] Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?, p. 125.
[13] Ibid., p. 125.
[14] Alastair Sooke, “Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA?”
[15] Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?, p 268.
[16] Michael R. McBride, “How Jackson Pollock and the CIA Teamed Up to Win The Cold War.”
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?, p 268.
[20] Hugh Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer, p. 107/108.
[21] Alastair Sooke, “Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA?”
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Johnston, Gordon. "Revisiting the Cultural Cold War." Social History 35, no. 3 (2010) p. 292.
[26] Alastair Sooke, “Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA?”
[27] Johnston, Gordon. "Revisiting the Cultural Cold War."p, 292.
[28] Robert Burstow, "The Limits of Modernist Art as a 'Weapon of the Cold War” p, 69.
[29] Francis Stonor Saunders, "Modern Art Was CIA 'Weapon”
[30] Ricardo Martinez, “CIA Used Art as a Way to Gain Leverage During a Propaganda Driven Cold War... How?” Widewalls. September 13, 2015, (accessed December 13, 2018)
[31] Robert Burstow, "The Limits of Modernist Art as a 'Weapon of the Cold War” p, 69.
[32] Ibid., p. 69.
[33] Johnston, Gordon. "Revisiting the Cultural Cold War." Social History 35, p 305.
[34]Ibid., p. 305.
[35]Alastair Sooke, “Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA?”
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Francis Stonor Saunders, “Modern Art Was CIA 'Weapon”
[39]Ibid.
[40] Alastair Sooke, “Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA?”
[41] Michael R. McBride, “How Jackson Pollock and the CIA Teamed Up to Win The Cold War.”
[1] Jr. Joseph S Nye, Foreign Policy, No. 80, Twentieth Anniversary. Washington post. Newsweek Interactive, LLC. 1990. 167.
[2] Francis Stonor Saunders, “Modern Art Was CIA 'Weapon”. The Independent. 22nd October 1995. (accsessed December 13, 2018)
[3] Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War. Granta Books: Great Britain, 1999.
[4] Robert Burstow, “The Limits of Modernist Art as a 'Weapon of the Cold War”: Reassessing the Unknown Patron of the Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner. Oxford Art Journal 20, no. 1 (1997): 68
[5] Alastair Sooke, “Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA?”, BBC Culture, 4 October 2016, (accessed December 13, 2018)
[6] Ibid.
[7] Hugh Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America, United States of America: 2008, 101/102
[8] Alastair Sooke, “Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA?”
[9] Francis Stonor Saunders, “Modern Art Was CIA 'Weapon”
[10] Alastair Sooke, “Was Modern Art a Weapon of the CIA?”
[11] Francis Stonor Saunders, “Modern Art Was CIA 'Weapon”
[12] Mikhail Chepik, “Flowers to Stalin,” 1951, oil on canvas: https://musings-on-art.org/soviet-realism-1940-1953
[13] Jackson Pollock – Convergence, 1952 Martinez, Ricardo. “CIA Used Art as a Way to Gain Leverage During a Propaganda Driven Cold War... How?” September 13, 2015
Comments