The CIA used art, music, and even tabloid gossip in the psychological battle against Communism. Was its covert use of cultural weapons inherently antidemocratic?
Quick "war story.." Arriving south of Da Nang in 1965, our unit camped at the base of huge, cavernous rock monoliths, "Marble Mountain." At that early point in the war, the Viet Cong "owned" Marble Mountain and repeatedly sniped at us from honeycombed cave openings, day & night. One night, after about two weeks, we hung up a large canvas on the side of a six-by truck and our "film entertainment crew" turned on the big projector and we watched Jane Fonda in "Cat Ballou." By happenstance, I think, the"screen"was available to those perched with weapons way up above us, on Marble Mountain. The whole time the movie was on, they never fired at us. When it went off, they began firing again! The next day, we moved up on the monoliths and chased them out. No more Cat Ballou for them. But here is the point: We all--Viet Cong and Marines--wanted to watch Jane Fonda.
Question 1, the arts can speak straight to our hearts and minds without necessarily involving the "slow thinking" part of our cognition. We understand the emotions that the arts evoke without having to appreciate their logic and structure. They are a straight path to feelings.
I haven’t ever told this story but this is the perfect forum and is related to question #1.
My father’s two sisters and their children lived under USSR rule in Riga, Latvia, from 1945 after soviet occupation until 1991 when Latvia regained it’s independence from illegal russian occupation. My father used a carton of cigarettes to bribe a soviet border guard to cross into the American sector in Germany at the end of WWII. Fast forward five years, my Dad and Mom ended up in California where I was born!
During the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, my Dad often sent his sisters things by parcel post that were difficult or impossible to buy in Latvia under soviet rule. For example, pencils with erasers, nice shoes, coffee, etc. I went with my parents to San Francisco where a russian man operated the store from where packages could be shipped to Latvia. What was incredibly boring for me as a kid, this man examined EACH and EVERY item for minutes, while checking a list of what the soviets allowed to be sent to Latvia.
Needless to say, NO records or tapes, NO books, NO artwork, NOTHING that reflected American or Western culture was allowed, including sports-related items such as baseball caps, t-shirts of American teams, etc. Forget it!
After this grueling inspection of and packaging of what my parents sent to Latvia, many weeks later, my Dad received a letter from his sisters thanking him for the stuff he had sent, but from everything his sisters had listed, some items had been removed from the package and had never arrived (e.g., coffee). Even the letters my Dad received appeared as if they had been “steamed open,” read and then resealed.
In return, every Christmas my Dad received a package from his sister’s that usually included a few albums of Latvian chorus music, that except for the language, pretty much sounded EXACTLY like the sample of militaristic, soviet music from the 1960s which was included in this week’s lecture. Needless to say, neither my parents nor us children ever listened to this “music” and the growing number of these albums sat for decades in a cabinet until they went to Goodwill after my parents passed away.
Fast forward again to 2001, my Mom, sister, and I visited our Dad’s sisters and their children in a FREE Latvia! Riga was preparing for it’s 800-year anniversary, with refurbished cobblestone streets, the city bustling with nice cars, modern western grocery stores and department stores, fantastic restaurants and bars. Only 10 years after regaining independence from the soviet occupiers, barely a hint remained in Riga of the dark decades under USSR rule, except for approximately half of the population being of russian ancestry, the majority who also preferred freedom.
And while walking the streets of old Riga, I stopped in many music stores, sporting goods stores, and other shops that had been strictly forbidden under USSR rule, with much of the merchandise from American and other western musicians and sports teams, with Santana’s latest hit song blaring in one music shop. I really felt proud to be an American and that our government NEVER recognized the soviet annexation of the three Baltic states.
So I believe the answer to question #1 is obvious!
Feb 9, 2023·edited Feb 10, 2023Liked by Asha Rangappa
I’ve been inordinately excited about this lecture, probably because I actually know something about the field as someone with more music composition degrees than are strictly necessary. I remember coming across the BBC article when it first came out and being as fascinated by what the CIA didn’t support as what they did. In academic circles the musical parallel to abstract expressionism is often understood to be modernist or post-tonal music (the terminology is fluid and always unsatisfying) and was represented by composers like Milton Babbitt, Elliott Carter, and (though he used a completely different process) John Cage. If you’re thinking, “Who are these people?” maybe it’s because the CIA didn’t throw their support behind this kind of musical expression. I can’t help imagining a bunch of CIA agents in a room planning their next campaign in the cultural cold war, listening to some Milton Babbitt and just being like, “Nope.”
Milton babbitt : three compositions for piano (1948)
I confess to having an affinity for some of Babbitt’s piano music and it clearly anticipates aspects of free jazz though it’s very strictly notated. But I digress…
1) Art and music make a different psychological impact than books and manifestos because they are naturally less didactic and open to multiple and shifting interpretations. The best art invites a multiplicity of interpretations which makes it useful if you’re trying to promote democratic ideals like freedom of expression, but also a threat to political actors that ultimately are still very much oriented toward control. It’s a useful tool in the arsenal to the extent that the message you’re trying to convey reflects social realities. More about this in question 2…
2) Throughout this course, the formula that’s been emerging in my mind is that public diplomacy is more effective the closer it is to the social reality. The tension between Jazz artists like Simone and Armstrong and the government sponsored PR/propaganda efforts is perhaps the quintessential example of (to use the musical term) dissonance between the public diplomacy efforts and the domestic social realities. I would argue there is some inevitable pollution of cultural discourse, when agents, who may or may not understand the dynamics of a given genre, attempt to co-opt an artistic expression for a narrow political purpose. I mean, the CIA didn’t seem too interested in promoting free jazz by Cecil Taylor (Looking Ahead, 1959) or Ornette Coleman (Free Jazz, 1960). In fairness, Coleman and Taylor sonically have more in common with Babbitt and Carter than Armstong and Simone. And yeah, I just tied that all together :~)
3) There is, for the first time in history really, a global musical common practice and it’s built on the foundation of the blues. This global blues-based common practice has led to an incredible explosion of creativity, whether you’re talking about Mongolian metal like the Hu band or Indonesian Dandut or African Highlife (in which African musicians reappropriate African influences from the Americas into their popular music), or the wealth of really interesting and innovative music here in the west that thrives just below the surface of the mega hits. Molly Tuttle, who just won the Grammy for best bluegrass album, is a great exemplar of the second generation of newgrass artists who are creating music that weaves blues, jazz, and rock into bluegrass in very intentional and compelling ways.
But blues-based music is still a threat to American dominant political culture, especially in the work of an artist like Kendrick Lamar, whose music expertly spans so many genres, but is so raw and unflinching in critiquing racism that it defies domestication. We have H.E.R. channeling gospel into “The Lord is Coming” where she and YBN Cordae eviscerate white evangelical apocalyptic fetishism in the most artistic way possible.
So, I guess the answer is that American culture has massive resources to engage in a battle against anti-democratic forces globally, but too many of those resources are still being spent in the battle against anti-democratic forces domestically. Virtually every modern musical genre owes a debt to the blues, yet we still have our society organized in a way to guarantee a high level of misery to Black people. We remain trapped in many of the patterns that existed in the 50s and 60s when the CIA first undertook the cultural cold war.
1. I would say music and art can talk to the soul (or play to emotions) in ways books and manifestos, particularly the more academically oriented ones, cannot. At the same time, music and art are liable to reach larger percentages of populations than books, particularly in the 21st century. So, yes, they are both useful tools when it comes to countering foreign influence.
2. I see no issues with using culture as a form of psychological warfare so long as it stays within the bounds of legality. Additionally, I would argue that any American efforts to weaponize culture remain rooted in reality. It would be acceptable to emphasize America's best features but a bridge too far to sell false notions (IE: Claiming slavery was benign or America never had issues with discrimination).
3. If America wants to win the culture war, it should embrace one advantage democracies tend to have over autocracies: creativity. Additionally, the United States and its allies should redevelop self-confidence and embrace the idea of being badass. When badassery is combined with creativity, we tend to end up with effective cultural weapons like Rambo and Rocky IV.
Question 3) Does America have any unique forms of cultural expression that could be channeled in this battle in the same way as during the Cold War?
I doubt it. I think the kind of multilateral pressure we're putting on Russia now should be continued, and amplified. We should spend 10x as much on intelligence as on "active measures" of any sort -- we've acted so frequently with no idea of what we're doing. I'm starting to read The Folly and the Glory, and it confirms my thinking that the handing of Africa in the Cold War was a monumental tragedy -- set the continent back by 2-4 decades and so many millions of lives.
In the current instance, I think we ought to fight harder for the friendship of the Russian Emigrant community than Putin does, and he does a lot (not for their friendship but to keep them from being an active force). That would be a kind of active measure but not the usual kind, which is something along the lines of throwing dirt in someone's eyes. It would be the opposite - to learn all we can from them and offer them support in winning their country back. I'm sort of thinking off the top of my head though.
1. Art and music elicit emotional responses and the impact is instantaneous, instinctual. Written words require the reading, comprehension, and analysis to determine their impact on our emotions or beliefs. In our world, icons accompany or even replace messages on signs. This is not just for those who cannot read the words. We read images thousands of times faster than words.
2. Tough one… as mentioned, transparency is a cornerstone of democracy, and I must agree with it. However, I must admit inwardly cheering while reading the article about it. But even transparent propaganda is useful. The American radio broadcast to foreign lands during the wars was considered by many people as reliable and trustworthy. That highly democratic exposure drew people in to listen and believe. Perhaps naive, but I believe the average folks in Russia know they are being lied to. There must be a way to counter the daily barrage of BS. - It seems Anonymous has gotten in. haha
3. Another tough one…. These days it seems we have gone so overboard with our “cultural expression” that it is doing us harm. We are not taken seriously by much of the world. I am drawn to thinking about the younger generation and how they are reshaping our culture into what will become their world. In that I see hopes of a spirit and a “heels in the ground” stance that I hope will speak to the world. Not so much art, as artful, and transparent.
Whereas a book, say, or propaganda at the level of a widespread newspaper story, may require attention span to arrive at the intended conclusions, music and "artwork" are more easily interpreted without many conscious processes having to kick in. There are studies that suggest that only a small percentage of college graduates have ever read an entire book again after graduation. This lack of motivation to augment cognitive abilities as one ages has left too many without the faculties to see the processes that had gone into the creation of the piece of artwork or music. The intended result is "microwave ingestion" of whatever form of meaning has been intended to be derived. The creators of propaganda have census-based knowledge of the mindsets and worldviews of the intended audiences.
This series of thinking leaves me to wonder if propaganda should be considered unconstitutional, including when used domestically. As we studied in your civics lecture, should the Free World reward dereliction with spoon feeding of difficult to apprehend materials when responsibilities of civic duty haven't measured up to the maintenance of civic rights?
Great topic, but to attempt to honestly answer the 3 questions would take me a week just to reflect on the issues. But, one thing that comes to mind, is how mass media can even define what is propaganda. There was a documentary on PBS a few years ago about somebody who went around mostly rural America, i.e. away from the major cities, and recorded the songs and music that were popular locally. This was just before the advent of radio. In mining communities, the songs were about social issues particular to miners, in the American south it was about racial injustice. But, once radio arrived, it was the owners of the stations who controlled what people heard, and once that began to take place, music started to become commoditized which required some normalization of form and substance, and control of the messaging then shifted from the artist to the radio station owners whose focus was mostly making money. One of the first thing's the NAZI's did when they were elected was to push to have cheap radio's made available.
If one travels enough, one sees the price of industrializations and one of them is that societies are more opened, regardless of its political-economic system, to manipulation because in a way individuals are conditioned to trade some of their individualism for material gain. The same psychology that allows people to ignore the working conditions of people who build iphones is the same psychology that allows their humanity to be manipulated by cultural propaganda.
Question 2 got me thinking. If we are to evaluate art and music for a hidden message or political influence whether positive or negative I think it would squeeze all the life and possibly all the inspiration out of the art. Also you have to consider that art and music influences future generations of artists and musicians. Would a budding artist or musician emulate or follow the creative path of an artist or musician who was engaged in covert active measures?
The Russians in the 70s did everything they could to stamp out dissident or alternative forms of art. After a thaw during the Kruschev years they resorted to bulldozing informal open air shows and setting at least one artist’s studio on fire. It is chilling. I would think that info about Abstract Expressionism made a huge difference in their lives. Many of the artists got out eventually.
1) Jazz, blues, rock, and modern art were a sort of pure rebellion with a fun or hedonistic side, hard to "dis" convincingly. Marxist "dialectic" was a great instrument for putting down any sort of nonfictional literature - history, psychology, political sci, etc; it made people very glib with a kind of pseudo-rationality, which students in the Communist world were trained to spout, and to perceive as convincing.
2) I wouldn't recommend it; the effects were probably superficial, as was the "fall of the USSR". In late Soviet times, I'd spent some years trying to understand the deep early history of the Soviet Union, and was a little bored and branching out the likes of Hedrick Smith, the journalist who portrayed a broad spectrum of Russians of that period. I got the impression there were quite a few KGB agents who loved jazz. If you believe Catherine Belton (Putin's People) they understood quite a lot about the West and how to make money to self-finance using a blend of capitalism and Russian Mafia methods, and they thought the USSR needed some kind of capitalist transformation; maybe just crony capitalism, as is common in fascist states, which evolved in the 90s into gangster capitalism.
Quick "war story.." Arriving south of Da Nang in 1965, our unit camped at the base of huge, cavernous rock monoliths, "Marble Mountain." At that early point in the war, the Viet Cong "owned" Marble Mountain and repeatedly sniped at us from honeycombed cave openings, day & night. One night, after about two weeks, we hung up a large canvas on the side of a six-by truck and our "film entertainment crew" turned on the big projector and we watched Jane Fonda in "Cat Ballou." By happenstance, I think, the"screen"was available to those perched with weapons way up above us, on Marble Mountain. The whole time the movie was on, they never fired at us. When it went off, they began firing again! The next day, we moved up on the monoliths and chased them out. No more Cat Ballou for them. But here is the point: We all--Viet Cong and Marines--wanted to watch Jane Fonda.
Question 1, the arts can speak straight to our hearts and minds without necessarily involving the "slow thinking" part of our cognition. We understand the emotions that the arts evoke without having to appreciate their logic and structure. They are a straight path to feelings.
I haven’t ever told this story but this is the perfect forum and is related to question #1.
My father’s two sisters and their children lived under USSR rule in Riga, Latvia, from 1945 after soviet occupation until 1991 when Latvia regained it’s independence from illegal russian occupation. My father used a carton of cigarettes to bribe a soviet border guard to cross into the American sector in Germany at the end of WWII. Fast forward five years, my Dad and Mom ended up in California where I was born!
During the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, my Dad often sent his sisters things by parcel post that were difficult or impossible to buy in Latvia under soviet rule. For example, pencils with erasers, nice shoes, coffee, etc. I went with my parents to San Francisco where a russian man operated the store from where packages could be shipped to Latvia. What was incredibly boring for me as a kid, this man examined EACH and EVERY item for minutes, while checking a list of what the soviets allowed to be sent to Latvia.
Needless to say, NO records or tapes, NO books, NO artwork, NOTHING that reflected American or Western culture was allowed, including sports-related items such as baseball caps, t-shirts of American teams, etc. Forget it!
After this grueling inspection of and packaging of what my parents sent to Latvia, many weeks later, my Dad received a letter from his sisters thanking him for the stuff he had sent, but from everything his sisters had listed, some items had been removed from the package and had never arrived (e.g., coffee). Even the letters my Dad received appeared as if they had been “steamed open,” read and then resealed.
In return, every Christmas my Dad received a package from his sister’s that usually included a few albums of Latvian chorus music, that except for the language, pretty much sounded EXACTLY like the sample of militaristic, soviet music from the 1960s which was included in this week’s lecture. Needless to say, neither my parents nor us children ever listened to this “music” and the growing number of these albums sat for decades in a cabinet until they went to Goodwill after my parents passed away.
Fast forward again to 2001, my Mom, sister, and I visited our Dad’s sisters and their children in a FREE Latvia! Riga was preparing for it’s 800-year anniversary, with refurbished cobblestone streets, the city bustling with nice cars, modern western grocery stores and department stores, fantastic restaurants and bars. Only 10 years after regaining independence from the soviet occupiers, barely a hint remained in Riga of the dark decades under USSR rule, except for approximately half of the population being of russian ancestry, the majority who also preferred freedom.
And while walking the streets of old Riga, I stopped in many music stores, sporting goods stores, and other shops that had been strictly forbidden under USSR rule, with much of the merchandise from American and other western musicians and sports teams, with Santana’s latest hit song blaring in one music shop. I really felt proud to be an American and that our government NEVER recognized the soviet annexation of the three Baltic states.
So I believe the answer to question #1 is obvious!
I’ve been inordinately excited about this lecture, probably because I actually know something about the field as someone with more music composition degrees than are strictly necessary. I remember coming across the BBC article when it first came out and being as fascinated by what the CIA didn’t support as what they did. In academic circles the musical parallel to abstract expressionism is often understood to be modernist or post-tonal music (the terminology is fluid and always unsatisfying) and was represented by composers like Milton Babbitt, Elliott Carter, and (though he used a completely different process) John Cage. If you’re thinking, “Who are these people?” maybe it’s because the CIA didn’t throw their support behind this kind of musical expression. I can’t help imagining a bunch of CIA agents in a room planning their next campaign in the cultural cold war, listening to some Milton Babbitt and just being like, “Nope.”
Milton babbitt : three compositions for piano (1948)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyZKTtr8b4c
I confess to having an affinity for some of Babbitt’s piano music and it clearly anticipates aspects of free jazz though it’s very strictly notated. But I digress…
1) Art and music make a different psychological impact than books and manifestos because they are naturally less didactic and open to multiple and shifting interpretations. The best art invites a multiplicity of interpretations which makes it useful if you’re trying to promote democratic ideals like freedom of expression, but also a threat to political actors that ultimately are still very much oriented toward control. It’s a useful tool in the arsenal to the extent that the message you’re trying to convey reflects social realities. More about this in question 2…
2) Throughout this course, the formula that’s been emerging in my mind is that public diplomacy is more effective the closer it is to the social reality. The tension between Jazz artists like Simone and Armstrong and the government sponsored PR/propaganda efforts is perhaps the quintessential example of (to use the musical term) dissonance between the public diplomacy efforts and the domestic social realities. I would argue there is some inevitable pollution of cultural discourse, when agents, who may or may not understand the dynamics of a given genre, attempt to co-opt an artistic expression for a narrow political purpose. I mean, the CIA didn’t seem too interested in promoting free jazz by Cecil Taylor (Looking Ahead, 1959) or Ornette Coleman (Free Jazz, 1960). In fairness, Coleman and Taylor sonically have more in common with Babbitt and Carter than Armstong and Simone. And yeah, I just tied that all together :~)
3) There is, for the first time in history really, a global musical common practice and it’s built on the foundation of the blues. This global blues-based common practice has led to an incredible explosion of creativity, whether you’re talking about Mongolian metal like the Hu band or Indonesian Dandut or African Highlife (in which African musicians reappropriate African influences from the Americas into their popular music), or the wealth of really interesting and innovative music here in the west that thrives just below the surface of the mega hits. Molly Tuttle, who just won the Grammy for best bluegrass album, is a great exemplar of the second generation of newgrass artists who are creating music that weaves blues, jazz, and rock into bluegrass in very intentional and compelling ways.
But blues-based music is still a threat to American dominant political culture, especially in the work of an artist like Kendrick Lamar, whose music expertly spans so many genres, but is so raw and unflinching in critiquing racism that it defies domestication. We have H.E.R. channeling gospel into “The Lord is Coming” where she and YBN Cordae eviscerate white evangelical apocalyptic fetishism in the most artistic way possible.
So, I guess the answer is that American culture has massive resources to engage in a battle against anti-democratic forces globally, but too many of those resources are still being spent in the battle against anti-democratic forces domestically. Virtually every modern musical genre owes a debt to the blues, yet we still have our society organized in a way to guarantee a high level of misery to Black people. We remain trapped in many of the patterns that existed in the 50s and 60s when the CIA first undertook the cultural cold war.
1. I would say music and art can talk to the soul (or play to emotions) in ways books and manifestos, particularly the more academically oriented ones, cannot. At the same time, music and art are liable to reach larger percentages of populations than books, particularly in the 21st century. So, yes, they are both useful tools when it comes to countering foreign influence.
2. I see no issues with using culture as a form of psychological warfare so long as it stays within the bounds of legality. Additionally, I would argue that any American efforts to weaponize culture remain rooted in reality. It would be acceptable to emphasize America's best features but a bridge too far to sell false notions (IE: Claiming slavery was benign or America never had issues with discrimination).
3. If America wants to win the culture war, it should embrace one advantage democracies tend to have over autocracies: creativity. Additionally, the United States and its allies should redevelop self-confidence and embrace the idea of being badass. When badassery is combined with creativity, we tend to end up with effective cultural weapons like Rambo and Rocky IV.
Question 3) Does America have any unique forms of cultural expression that could be channeled in this battle in the same way as during the Cold War?
I doubt it. I think the kind of multilateral pressure we're putting on Russia now should be continued, and amplified. We should spend 10x as much on intelligence as on "active measures" of any sort -- we've acted so frequently with no idea of what we're doing. I'm starting to read The Folly and the Glory, and it confirms my thinking that the handing of Africa in the Cold War was a monumental tragedy -- set the continent back by 2-4 decades and so many millions of lives.
In the current instance, I think we ought to fight harder for the friendship of the Russian Emigrant community than Putin does, and he does a lot (not for their friendship but to keep them from being an active force). That would be a kind of active measure but not the usual kind, which is something along the lines of throwing dirt in someone's eyes. It would be the opposite - to learn all we can from them and offer them support in winning their country back. I'm sort of thinking off the top of my head though.
Enjoyed these examples, thank you Asha
1. Art and music elicit emotional responses and the impact is instantaneous, instinctual. Written words require the reading, comprehension, and analysis to determine their impact on our emotions or beliefs. In our world, icons accompany or even replace messages on signs. This is not just for those who cannot read the words. We read images thousands of times faster than words.
2. Tough one… as mentioned, transparency is a cornerstone of democracy, and I must agree with it. However, I must admit inwardly cheering while reading the article about it. But even transparent propaganda is useful. The American radio broadcast to foreign lands during the wars was considered by many people as reliable and trustworthy. That highly democratic exposure drew people in to listen and believe. Perhaps naive, but I believe the average folks in Russia know they are being lied to. There must be a way to counter the daily barrage of BS. - It seems Anonymous has gotten in. haha
3. Another tough one…. These days it seems we have gone so overboard with our “cultural expression” that it is doing us harm. We are not taken seriously by much of the world. I am drawn to thinking about the younger generation and how they are reshaping our culture into what will become their world. In that I see hopes of a spirit and a “heels in the ground” stance that I hope will speak to the world. Not so much art, as artful, and transparent.
deleted comment
Whereas a book, say, or propaganda at the level of a widespread newspaper story, may require attention span to arrive at the intended conclusions, music and "artwork" are more easily interpreted without many conscious processes having to kick in. There are studies that suggest that only a small percentage of college graduates have ever read an entire book again after graduation. This lack of motivation to augment cognitive abilities as one ages has left too many without the faculties to see the processes that had gone into the creation of the piece of artwork or music. The intended result is "microwave ingestion" of whatever form of meaning has been intended to be derived. The creators of propaganda have census-based knowledge of the mindsets and worldviews of the intended audiences.
This series of thinking leaves me to wonder if propaganda should be considered unconstitutional, including when used domestically. As we studied in your civics lecture, should the Free World reward dereliction with spoon feeding of difficult to apprehend materials when responsibilities of civic duty haven't measured up to the maintenance of civic rights?
Great topic, but to attempt to honestly answer the 3 questions would take me a week just to reflect on the issues. But, one thing that comes to mind, is how mass media can even define what is propaganda. There was a documentary on PBS a few years ago about somebody who went around mostly rural America, i.e. away from the major cities, and recorded the songs and music that were popular locally. This was just before the advent of radio. In mining communities, the songs were about social issues particular to miners, in the American south it was about racial injustice. But, once radio arrived, it was the owners of the stations who controlled what people heard, and once that began to take place, music started to become commoditized which required some normalization of form and substance, and control of the messaging then shifted from the artist to the radio station owners whose focus was mostly making money. One of the first thing's the NAZI's did when they were elected was to push to have cheap radio's made available.
If one travels enough, one sees the price of industrializations and one of them is that societies are more opened, regardless of its political-economic system, to manipulation because in a way individuals are conditioned to trade some of their individualism for material gain. The same psychology that allows people to ignore the working conditions of people who build iphones is the same psychology that allows their humanity to be manipulated by cultural propaganda.
Question 2 got me thinking. If we are to evaluate art and music for a hidden message or political influence whether positive or negative I think it would squeeze all the life and possibly all the inspiration out of the art. Also you have to consider that art and music influences future generations of artists and musicians. Would a budding artist or musician emulate or follow the creative path of an artist or musician who was engaged in covert active measures?
I’m thinking of The Ransom of Russian Art by John McPhee, about an American Professor who collected 8,000 pieces of unofficial Soviet Art, McPhee suggests it was a covert operation. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374524500/theransomofrussianart
The Russians in the 70s did everything they could to stamp out dissident or alternative forms of art. After a thaw during the Kruschev years they resorted to bulldozing informal open air shows and setting at least one artist’s studio on fire. It is chilling. I would think that info about Abstract Expressionism made a huge difference in their lives. Many of the artists got out eventually.
PREBUNKING!!
So! It's not an agreement prior to consensual sex after all!
https://gizmodo.com/google-prebunking-misinformation-youtube-1850107205
#1, #2, #3:
Some artists were trying to counter active measures, but the active measures they were countering were purely American.
Whitey On The Moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwSRqaZGsPw
1) Jazz, blues, rock, and modern art were a sort of pure rebellion with a fun or hedonistic side, hard to "dis" convincingly. Marxist "dialectic" was a great instrument for putting down any sort of nonfictional literature - history, psychology, political sci, etc; it made people very glib with a kind of pseudo-rationality, which students in the Communist world were trained to spout, and to perceive as convincing.
2) I wouldn't recommend it; the effects were probably superficial, as was the "fall of the USSR". In late Soviet times, I'd spent some years trying to understand the deep early history of the Soviet Union, and was a little bored and branching out the likes of Hedrick Smith, the journalist who portrayed a broad spectrum of Russians of that period. I got the impression there were quite a few KGB agents who loved jazz. If you believe Catherine Belton (Putin's People) they understood quite a lot about the West and how to make money to self-finance using a blend of capitalism and Russian Mafia methods, and they thought the USSR needed some kind of capitalist transformation; maybe just crony capitalism, as is common in fascist states, which evolved in the 90s into gangster capitalism.
(to be continued in "Reply")