WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Flyover Features: How Much Did the CIA Influence Culture?

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

Emma and Sophia discuss the agency's influence on art, and what that implies about the meaning of culture itself.

You're listening to Flyover Features on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM, a radio show where we discussed relevant cultural articles and share our opinions. I'm Emma Verini, and I'm here with Sophia Mant. In this episode, we're actually going to be talking about an article that came out on substack. On substack. April 10th, 2025. This article was written by Angela. Favilla, and this article is called Do you actually like modern art,

or did the CIA convince you? Like everything else, art is political. Go. Ah, yes. The CIA, just, it's like, it's kind of funny how generally speaking more left-wing people dislike the CIA and then more right-leaning people

dislike the FBI. And I just think they both do interesting questionable things. Let's just critique both. But anyway, this is sort of one of those, oh, this is a myth, but actually this ended up being true, just like MK. Ultra in which like drugs were tested on random people to see how they psychologically affected them.

And it's really disturbing. Just like everything else. Yes. Every conspiracy theory. Most of them. It's really, actually, I could not tell you the specifics, but there was this, um, our old, I think Life magazine article I read that was extremely disturbing.

That was talking about the scientist who believed that humans had no free will. And he was testing certain drugs on them. It was like it was basically an MK Ultra article, but it was written with a surprisingly neutral tone. And it had a very neutral perspective on things that I thought were clearly evil and wrong on just this person who wanted to test things on humans. I don't know. There's a lot of, there's a dark side to these sorts of things.

Or like the crazy Russian scientist who was the first to really invent heart transplants and was a pioneer in modern medicine. But he did these horrific experiments where he created a two-headed dog. And he did like over 20 of these. And you just see this. It's like there's a small dog attached to a German shepherd. And it's like the small dog is a hook to this dog. And you just see them both in suffering and misery. And it was like these horrific experiments that led.

yes to saving lives, but there's something that feels very wrong to me about doing, causing suffering to others in order to prevent others' pain in the future, if that makes sense. I don't know. Like, it's just like an evil for good. The ends do not justify the means is what Sophia is saying. Yes. And that's somewhat how I feel about this, although I feel mixed because basically it argues, which is true, that the CIA acted.

try to in their fight against the Soviet Union, influence and infiltrate the art scene and what they represented when it comes to modern art, which is, as you'd imagine, you know, splattered paint on a canvas. And I knew they had done with the Jackson Pollock, who I actually like on ironically, because I like how crazy his art looks and it looks like it's trying to do something, and it just is fun to have on a wall. I just have, like, a painting of his that's just like black splattered paint. And as does my dad like him. And it's really interesting because I know, No, like of one other person who also likes him, but is not generally a fan of modern art as a whole. But anyway, it is interesting because, like, that's definitely an example of me liking an artist in spite of CIA involvement or whatever.

Or maybe I'm just a consumer. But, yeah, this article argues that the CIA launched a covert, in her words, campaign to export American art and with it the values of freedom and self-expression. And Hay Whitney, who was the president of New York's Museum of Modern Art, believed in art's power as a diplomatic tool. And as he once put it, to quote the article, art would do more to bring us together as friends than 10 years of commercial and political work. So the people behind this believed that artwork could represent ideology better than any other aspect of human. culture or society, which is very interesting. This is American liberalism at its peak. Yeah.

And the main art form that this article focuses on is American abstract expressionism. So for those who are not immediately familiar with what that looks like, the first picture that the article features is literally just splattered lines like, like Sophia said, all over a white canvas. And I kid you not, this looks like someone like threw a couple of pieces of gum on the sidewalk and then like stepped on it and then like took another step forward and did that like a couple hundred times with different pieces of gum and, you know, they took a picture of the sidewalk and that's it. I think it's funny that at some point in the article she says, what better symbol of liberty than a country willing to champion art? It didn't even understand.

And it's really strange to me that the CIA thought that, you know, in layman's terms, abstract expressionism or whatever, kind of looks like splattered paint on a canvas, that they thought that this would show America's free. Because you just see contrast of that and then like realistic paintings of Lenin around a council of people. And I feel like if all you see of the Soviet Union in America is those. two's images. Everybody's picking the Soviets. Yeah. The communist win, folks. Sorry. And I mean, I actually do hate the Soviet Union. So it's kind of funny that they thought that was successful.

But if I mean, now, if they are sponsoring, you know, bands like the doors, ha ha, or the Beatles or, you know, artists like that, I know the Beatles are British, but, you know, broadly Western. Now that would be good. But this seems like who, I don't know, it seems strange that people thought it was successful, especially because at the time, like, this modern art, a ton of conservatives or not even necessarily conservatives, but people critiqued the art of the day and were like, oh, it's so meaningless and postmodern. And why is this being supported? And isn't it all just money laundering? Which apparently it actually is, because I spoke to an art critic once. I don't remember his name, but I did speak to him. And he said that it's totally true,

like it's an open secret, that a lot of modern art or even art is just money laundering for rich people. That is true. I mean, you see the art that gets sold at some of these auctions, and it's like a piece of tape on the wall or like a banana, and then it sells for $5 million. Like, how does that not raise any eyebrows? I guess it does raise eyebrows, and people know that it's money laundering, but still, like. Yeah. I will say it is interesting because she does bring a good point that I think I agree with this. There actually are people that kind of do like actually like modern art. mean, you know, she said it wasn't totally CIA sponsored. You know, there were a lot of artists that were, you know, actually making the art that was being promoted in the first place. So she argues they really more amplified them recognizing their powers cultural weapons. And like I said before, I unironically actually like Jackson Pollock and willingly hang him in my room.

So, you know, I don't, you know, maybe I wouldn't have heard about him without the CIA, which is kind of creepy to think about how much these groups are influencing us, but also like, you know, I'm not exactly sure how deep their involvement goes that like this absolutely would not have existed as an art movement without it. Because I also think that like rich people do some weird things and you'd have to have some level of interest in the first place for people to willingly go to them. But who knows, social and cultural pressure can do a number on people. I think we have to sort of go back to the point we were talking about also where it's like, okay, yeah, the see. did this stuff, but how effective could this possibly be?

Yeah. Like, how is this actually going to serve as a diplomatic tool between nations? You know? Like, how is this effective? Yeah. Well, I mean, that's the thing. This surely could, it seems like there was some very strange people behind us to think that this was the most effective tool. But also, I mean, this art was remarkably successful.

And I feel like there's there's music. Yes, it's promoted by producers. But I don't know. There's a lot of art with air quotes today that I feel like is pretty bad and banal and gives postmodern vibes, whatever that even means. That seems to be genuinely popular with a lot of people. That just is kind of meaningless. But I think it's fair to say they probably did have some influence, especially because, for example, speaking now and to critique now both the right and the left for influences, because this is

broadly kind of critiquing from the right somewhat because they wanted more views associated with supposedly at the time like the Republicans in the era. But the Iowa Writers Workshop, I know, also had CIA involvement to some level, which affected the types of stories and stuff that was being made. And the Iowa Writers Workshop, people critique it all the time, but it still has some influences, and there's been pretty well-known works that have risen from this. It's a master's program in creative writing, and a lot of people who have written have become successful, very well-known authors in their own right. But today, if you look at it, it very much is, from what I've heard, you know, more biased towards sort of stereotypical liberal views.

And I feel like I don't really like big state governmental forces trying to constrain or force art either way. But that does frustrate me. And it does seem like it's broadly speaking more on the today left that is kind of having these cultural effects.

And I don't really... It's like, it's a weird dichotomy because, you know, when there's some level of suppression, you have really good art that's created. But I also don't like constraining art and the power and freedom of the human spirit. And I think Kamalpaglia brings some good things about how she just, you know, she hates these movements like the new historicists who are like, it's all in this historical context and they're trying to constrain and control stuff.

But she's not a fan of, you know, your traditional conservatives either. But I think she's more willing to be edgy and critique this so-called like liberal perspective or whatever because they're the ones that she sees as actively more actually censoring art these days broadly speaking. because, you know, I went to, and I still am, I'm Christian, I went to a small Christian school. Definitely, you know, I'm not about to be writing some anarcho-leftist work for, like, creative writing exercise or whatnot. But, you know, those are the sort of people that they're nice folks, but they're not, they're stuff that I like or few as beautiful and artistic that they wouldn't necessarily appreciate.

But I also don't think they have the dominant cultural control or power in our society when it comes to publishing works or books or stuff like that or what seems to be promoted. You're listening to Flyover Features on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I feel like we also need to discuss sort of what the intention behind a lot of this stuff was. Ostensibly, it was to counter communism by supporting socialist cultural movements. So the way that one of the curators mentioned in the, this article goes about phrasing it is I'd much rather the CIA spend money on abstract expressionism than toppling left-wing governments. And Sophia was sort of talking about this earlier,

how like the CIA tends to be grouped in with more right-wing movements that try to counter left-wing governments and left-wing influence, whereas the FBI, the right-winger sort of dislike for, you know, the opposite reason. So, I think it's interesting that, you know, to counter communism, you go and champion socialist movements. And, I mean, this stuff is still like liberal art. This is still liberal art, you know? When, like, the artists themselves are communist and anarchist. But they're just less communist than the communists from the Soviet Union.

Although, hot take, but I kind of, someone who actually likes counterculture in the 60s, okay, maybe it like helped to bring, I don't know, the end of the West or something, but like, I like the art. I don't really know. This is something I need to think more on, but I just get a lot of different vibes and different as in a good way with a lot of the so-called bands, music, artists of the 60s, especially music associated with the left, because it's like, okay, yeah, they're doing LSD, they're not representing traditional family values.

but their music is actually genuinely really good. And I'm sorry, but I will listen to that way more than contemporary Christian music that doesn't have any soul behind it. I don't know. Like, I'd wonder if it's part of they think that it still represents in some ways, even though it's paradoxical, like this freedom that maybe is just implicit that doesn't exist in the Soviets. Like you can't question or go against the dominant narrative, but look it, you still can hear.

I don't know. Like, probably the CIA didn't think about it that deeply. But for me, I'm kind of tempted to think about it in that way. And that's what I always feel this tension where it's like, I don't necessarily agree with what a lot of the 60s artists may be fought for. But like, I can't say they weren't getting at something if they're, if they actually created amazing art. But I have a bit of a weird way of viewing art, a little onhand from too much, Paglia.

No, I think that's definitely true. I think that if you make good art, it shouldn't matter. or what your ideology is. It's like if you have to promote the idea that you're a Christian or a conservative to sort of market what you're doing and you can't just let your work stand alone, then because I see that a lot. I'll see someone who's, you know, they have a Christian company or whatever. It's like, okay, but like can you actually like carry out the services that you need to

carry out to have a good company? And the same thing I think goes for art. Like if it's all the liberals and the same. 60s who are making good music, then that's what I'm going to listen to, obviously. Yeah, exactly. And that's not to say, like, all of the people who were making good music in the 60s and in the 70s were liberals, because that's not true. No, it's not. Look at Eric Clapton or Van Morrison. Those guys were not liberals at all, and they made great music. Ted Nugent, okay, like, it's funny because a lot, no, seriously, I don't, I, you know, I just listened

to generally music because I enjoy it. Ted Nugent is like the ultimate stereotype of a right-wing person, and he's kind of crazy, he has his personal problems. But oh my goodness, he's genuinely, like on the other side. He's a great, like, guitar player, and I love a lot of his music. It's, although I will say that I do feel like, like I said before, you could, again, I need to look into this more. But I think the old, so-called left of the 60s and 70s is maybe it has the seeds of the modern left, but I feel like it is in some ways a totally different ideology. It does not feel to exactly resemble a lot of the more identity politics type obsessed left of today.

I mean, you had some of that, but I don't know. It just feels a lot different in some ways too, like, especially the dissident, more anarchist left, that I don't think really has a strong presence today, maybe never did, but was more notable with like C.W. Mills who, you know, he hated identity politics. And, you know, that's, there's people that exist that have that position, but that's not the dominant position represented by the political left today. I think an interesting question that an article like this raises, or also if we're talking about the Iowa Writers Workshop, which you mentioned earlier, which was a CIA-funded creative writing program, the University of Iowa, The question that a lot of this raises is, like, how much culture is, like, actually, like, grassroots, like, not astroturf, you know, not contrived?

Mm-hmm. And how much of it, you know, isn't. Yeah. Because, I mean, like, this sort of thing has been going on for a long time. Like, even back to the nationalist movement in the 19th century, like, Germany didn't have some unified culture or anything like that. Look at Wagner. Like he brought back these like ancient fairy tales that people were not reading.

They did not feel unified in the culture. And the same thing, sorts of things happened in Italy. So I think a lot of culture ends up being politically motivated. Yeah. And again, I can't figure out the dichotomy of like CIA influence and like actual people choosing it. Or it's like, well, wait a second. Okay. To get really meta here.

There had to be some sort of cultural impetus. for the CIA to decide to exist and to decide to influence art. Yeah. Like, how far back does it go? That's true. And I think it's like for us in our situation, it's so easy to look back like how many years has it been 50 or 60 years and say, oh, well, that's just contrived. Like this stuff was relatively recent. It's easy to say, oh, well, that was just contrived by the CIA.

But that sort of thing has been happening forever and ever, you know? Yeah, well, maybe, but it seems with this more centralized, globalized world we live in, widespread governmental control is, I mean, I want to say it's easier. Although also, like, if you talk about small dictatorships or like God kings, I guess it would have been just as contrived and forced. Or like, it's beautiful, it's beautiful. But so much of the great medieval Roman art, Roman Catholic, I should clarify. was, you know, built for the Pope or for kings or stuff like that. And it was political, even that was beautiful. I mean, even the works of, you know, David or the Sistine Chapel are responsible. There's some political stuff going on there.

Yep. Well, that's all we have time for today. I'm Emma Verini, and I'm here with Sophia Mant. You're listening to Flyover Features on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM.