But why? I was reading a fairly vacuous art history book and they drop all this knowledge and then do 0 analysis of it. Feels like they’re saying “teehee, ain’t it so quirky?” Their best guess was to counter Socialist Realism and to promote the US as an art powerhouse, a vision of artistic freedom!!! Is that the materialist interpretation?
E: Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. Genuinely. When I write that it sounds corporate, but I mean it
Heard about this fact with pop art, specifically Andy Warhol. Not truly surprised. But interesting how embedded it all is.
Valerie Solanas did nothing wrong apart from being inaccurate
She was a terf
Ah I did not know that, I was being jocular but yeah she did several things wrong
I don’t think I have seen anything about Warhol getting funding like that but I’d love some reading material if you have it. I read thru a (again, kind of vacuous) biography from one of his contemporaries or models? and it seemed like they were all burnouts that squatted in an old warehouse and then rich kids that wanted a “scene” kind of glommed onto them.
I’ve only seen it passing and can’t remember if it was in the wilds of the Internet or hexbear proper. Sorry
No sweat, thank you comrade
I think it was the pop art scene. I know I said specifically Andy Warhol, but I was more referring to his style however, I do believe he was mentioned as being an asset or funded etc, iirc, but it’s been ages since I’ve seen the info. Again sorry I can’t be more helpful and ty for the kind words