Connection: “MOMA, The Bomb and the Abstract Expressionists” and “Modern Art as a CIA ‘Weapon'”

The articles being compared in this review are “MOMA, The Bomb and the Abstract Expressionists,” which discusses the rise of Abstract Expressionism and their value to the CIA, and “Modern Art as a CIA ‘Weapon,’” where Frances Stonor Saunders goes into further detail of how the CIA used art during the Cold War. An interesting connection between both of these articles is the hypocrisy of the United States in their effort to halt the spread of Communism by disregarding the views of the people to achieve their own agenda.

In “MOMA, The Bomb and the Abstract Expressionists,” the author discusses the goal behind the CIA using abstract art. The CIA wanted to show a complete opposition to Communism, where the art is regulated and made to portray the beliefs of the government, by showing the freedom of their own artists. In order to do this they forced these giant paintings on museums, mainly in France, that did not want them. By doing this the government was taking away the freedoms of others to create and enjoy the art that they wished. By funding soley Abstract Expressionists and pushing for their work to be placed in museums, the CIA took away opportunities from other artists who did not meet their goals.. It begs the question: Why would a government who pushed for freedom so viciously, not allow for others to experience their own freedoms in the arts?

In “Modern Art as a CIA ‘Weapon,’” it discusses how in the 50’s and 60’s many despised modern art not even viewing it as art. The CIA liked the idea of how the art represented freedom and creativity, but at their height claimed to be able to influence over 800 media outlets. Their influence could manipulate the opinions world wide. They claimed to be proponents of cultural freedom, but in the end refused to allow this art form to develop without intervention. Without the pressure from the CIA would modern art be as popular as it is now? `
​
The United States government spent so much time, money, and influence in order to ensure that they were seen as BIGGER and BETTER and LOUDER than the smaller more realistic art featured in socialist states, that it is difficult to make a distinction between how much of the popularity was invented by the CIA. At the time people in the US did not like it and people in France went so far as to protest the art. The popularity might have naturally grown on its own to the point it is today, but with the amount of tampering it is hard to say. How could this art really represent freedom if people were not free to learn to like it in their own time?