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
Yeah the book I was reading said the artists did not necessarily know they were being used for propaganda. Some of them were nominally anti-gov, too. But outside of direct interviews which may not exist, I don’t know if we can know for sure. Funny lil coinky dink, really gets my noggin jogging, Pollock was killed in a car crash. Not exactly a strange death in the US, but
E: I read he was visiting Europe when he died. Trying not to be too conspiracy brained. Just thought it was worth mentioning
There are some figures in the abstract expressionism movement that were questioned about it. They said the artists had no knowledge, but then again if I were a CIA op that’s exactly what I would say.
Oh yeah also, immediately after his death the Met museum “acquired” all of his remaining works