/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6571782
And like what even is your argument? I thought (You) had been arguing that modern art was Marxism?

Arguing that the CIA was responsible for the popularity of an art movement because it triggered the commies is like the exact opposite of saying it’s Marxist.

And I don’t even disagree with anything other than the idiotic idea that I’ve seen repeated here a lot that the early CIA was A: actually effective, and B: responsible for like the progression of trends for like 80 years before they even existed.

It’s just a dumb take. The CIA weren’t creating popular trends they were utilizing ones that benefitted them as they came up. Just because some revisionist opinion piece written by some blogger says “the cia made Jackson Pollock rich” doesn’t make it real. He was rich before the cia ever thought about supporting subversive anti-communist art, which is why the blog posts posted as “research” all conveniently don’t mention dates.

>>6572758
*blind OR autistic
*hoser