American modernism and the role it played in the cold war. He argues that in an effort to win over skeptical intellectuals and cultural critics around the institutions in the United States such as the cia and state department promoted thatnism in order to prove they were sophisticated and on the cutting edge. This was posted by New York University. Mr. Barnhisel it is particularly special for me to be back here because i received my ba here. It is a real thrill to return here. In fact in many ways my book got its start in this building. Gradt mean in the usual student way, where this is where you start your research. To New York University as a pretty naive guy. I had barely been out of oregon. I did know anything about new york city. I had resolved to pay my own way in the city without any family help. Down a workstudy job here in the basement of those library, but i quickly learned that a 10 hour work week wasnt going to pay rent and living expenses. So even in a much cheaper time. Jobd to quit my workstudy and got a fulltime job in publishing at harpercollins. I took classes at night. My professors here were fantastic. I was learning by working in publishing. When i transferred down to the university of texas to do my doctorate, by project centered on publishing related questions that had arisen for me when i was working on 53rd street for rupert murdoch. Those questions that i became interested in, which are about how the institution that creates and disseminates intermediates our reception of literature and art, how do they do that question mark what is the effect of the mechanisms by which that works . Those are the ones i have been interested in in all of my scholarly work, and that is also what this book is about. There is probably no better place in the world to talk about modernism in the arts than new york city. The what is modernism . How many of you are in the english or Literature Program . Anyone . Some of you the rest of you history background . Ok. Those of you who are steeped in this, forgive me. What is modernism . s league glass boxes such as the Stevens Building . Sleek glass boxes like the Stevens Building . Jackson pollock at the museum of modern art . Or is it the tales of the 1920s manhattan in the novels of F Scott Fitzgerald and henry ross . Or is it the same to 1913 armory show which you brought the cost so in duchamp which brought picasso and duchamp . These are all undeniably modernist. But what is the dna they share . What made their audience recognize them as modernist . Modernism didnt even go by that name until loan to the 1950s, earlyke pornography, audiences new modernism when they saw it, even if it had no fixed cultural or political meaning. Wildly disparate modernist movements in the arts had little in common besides formal experimentation and a rejection of traditional methods of representing reality. But they also shared a rebellion against all existing standards and institutions, and a relentless pursuit of a new state. Modernism aw in fundamentally antinomian attitude. Irving howe called it an unyielding rage against the existing order, an unrelenting drive to reject, to break down, to toss out all in search of the new. But if modernism wanted to undermine middleclass society it was an utter failure. If anything, modernism came not to bury but to adorn middleclass life, colonizing its houses and its product and its entertainment. From a cause that intended to remake the world, as Nathan Glazer said in 2007, modernism had become a style. So what happened . How did modernism move from being a cause to a style . Shede 1950s, modernism and most of the associations of nihilism and rebellion, and eventually would use in support of its original enemy western middleclass values. Even as a retained dissociation with innovation, modernism also became, came to be presented as a profreedom, probe for joao movement, evident profor bourgeois movement. We can think about museums, the theater world, others. But cold war imperatives accelerated this development. In fact, modernism became a weapon in the socalled cultural the struggle for prestige and influence between the soviet union and its satellites on one side, in the nations of western europe on the other. Its battles ranged from heated exchanges at International Conferences to dueling Theatrical Productions to competing literary and cultural offers. A key prize of the war, particularly in the 1950s, were the sympathies of influential leftist intellectuals, who reviled what they saw as shallow Business Culture and cocacolonization. But they were also leery of stalinist dictatorship, especially after the revolution. Statesonse, united diplomats offered modernism in painting in literature and architecture in music as evidence of the high cultural achievements of the United States. Both government and private organizations argued that the very antitraditionalism that had once made modernist art and literature so threatening proved that western culture was superior to the culture being forged in soviet union and its analyte nations. I call please 1940s and 1950s program that use modernism for prowestern propaganda, as well as the politically driven reinterpretation of modernism, cold war modernism. It is not the art itself, it is the program that disseminated, and the intellectual framework that taught people how to reread what modernism meant. Modernism extended across the arts and the reframing took place and magazines, in touring exhibitions and shows, in books, on film, in the radio. Today i will talk primarily about cold war modernisms official governmental mandate, and the private groups and people, like publisher james laughlin, the museum of modern art, its president nelson rockefeller. The father of neoconservatism, irving kristol. Even william casey, a veteran of the oss london office, who after many years in the Business World became the cia director. They were all unified, and these were all different people with different approaches to the world, but they were unified by the consensus around liberal anticommunism, the political stance best expressed in the vital centrist. Highminded artists and writers into government bureaucrats and Business Executives say they didnt need to discuss what they believe. Liberal anticommunism was the very water in which they slam. They swam. The official cold war modernist project didnt start well. In 1946 the department of state hired leroy davidson, the former curator of the Walker Art Center in minneapolis, and i was just andhe walker this summer, that is still there looking the same way. Davidson to amass a collection of american arts they would circulate around european capitals. Bypurchased 79 Oil Paintings jack levine, then shone, ben shawn, all modernist artists. They were an abstract expressionist but they were painting in abstract form. Of these artists agreed to sell their paintings to the state department at a discount. Forgia okeeffe sold two 1000 even though the going rate was 10,000 per piece. The paintings cost them 49,000 in total, which is a pretty good deal for 72 Oil Paintings. The idea was to prove to european intellectuals that contrary to their predecessors, the United States did have advanced culture and the sophisticated art scene, that American Freedom and individualism were the very soil in which such innovative our group. Wew. We were just chewing gum and cowboy movies. Ismany countries overseas it a common misconception that our artists are second raters who have no creative individualism, a sentiment William Benton explained in a response to a congressional critic. This exhibit illustrates the freedom with which our american artists work. One of the things i and doing i look through these government documents and memos and statements to congress. Individualism, as a way to differentiate us from socialist realism in the soviet union. In addition, the exhibition stressedor this show the melting pot image of American Culture, calling attention to the fact that many of the artistts included were immigrants whose creative expressions flowered under American Freedom. The state department had not anticipated the fact that a lot of americans were not all that fond of modernism. The hearst papers started the attack. The february, 1947 magazine entitled your money bought these, brought the show to the notice of a broad public. Marshallor told george that the paintings were a travesty. A conservative art group questioned the cultural value of any exhibition which is so strongly marked with the radicalism of the new trend of european art, which are not indigenous to our soil. The nativism happening from these artists is interesting, given its really interesting. One artist said, these paintings were not american at the aliend in cultures, ideals, philosophies, and sicknesses of europe. Among these philosophies and sicknesses of course is communism. The popular outcry began to sway the establishment. In public, they give a qualified defense. But internally they complained that davidson should have known enough to buy pictures of several types so there would be some that would appeal to everybody. Finally, the administration disowned the show and president truman made a snide remark about that painting, adding that there was no art at all in connection with the modernists. It was not only snide about , but racist. Not only the show itself but the very infrastructure that have been created to use american modernist art as propaganda fell apart. The art specialist was eliminated, the paintings were sold off as war surplus at a 90 discount. Theyulk of the works reassembled the show in 2013 and sent it on tour. It is a very interesting i think it is at auburn right now. The state ritually infuriated the cultural establishment. The art world insisted that modernism was neither communistic nor fundamentalist. We reject the assumption that are witches aesthetically innovation must be socially or politically subversive. And 1950s debut that was jointly offered by officials at to Boston Institute of contemporary art. Alfred barr, the main curator of the median of modern art, wrote in 1953 that modern i was characterized most by a love of freedom, and thus could be in no way communist. Nelsonnefactor rockefeller called it Free Enterprise painting. Rockefeller may have been stretching but he wasnt entirely wrong. The state department had noted that works by some of the artists included in this show were in corporate collections such as those of ibm, pepsicola. Corporate use of modernism predated the 1940s. Walter pecks Container Corporation of america used very there is a really good website that has collected all of these Container Corporation of america ads and some of them are really great. They went on to fund the aspen forival, a summer camp the hyper elite. Had also organized to other shows that highlighted modernist artwork held the collection of american corporations and industrialist. These shows are that illustrate the same values of freedom individualism, creating a great art scene, that American Business and corporate capitalism were not inherently filthy. Theually over the course of 1950s, modernist art crept back into our cultural diplomacy, often in disguise. In 1951, in steel occupied itlin, the state department its role in organizing a show there. The head ofcture of the American Occupation force looking skeptically at a painting. The election of dwight eisenhower, usually seen as being far from intellectual, Whose Campaign has derided the competitor as an egghead, really derided the program. He created the United StatesInformation Agency in 1953 to coordinate information and cultural programs handled by the department state. These grew gradually braver. Sport in art, a show jointly sponsored by the usia and sports illustrated, was meant to complement the melbourne olympics. They previewed in dallas in 1955. Dallas is a highly conservative city and has been, an od choice to preview a modernist showd. A conservative local group objected to the inclusion of leftist artists, and to the nonrepresentational work. Usia director theodore strieber backpedaled and demand that they be removed. However, this time he ignored the complaints about the artwork. That was different about this episode from the previous was that it was no longer the modernism that was the problem, it was now the modernist. This is just postmccarthy. No longer was modernist techniques such as abstraction or distortion or nonrepresentationalism in itself a reason to pull a work. Further in this episode, liberals anin congress attacked the usia for conservatism. Even eisenhower talked about how freedom of the arts is a sick asic freedom. He really emphasized freedom in the arts. The antimodernist position weakened. And governmentsponsored shows that the rest of the 1950s it strengthened. The brussels world fair was held a modernist building. Far forto bit eisenhower who granted that there is a place for the modernistic school but the world fair is not the right venue to teach the public of europe. But instead of demanding changes, as truman had, he allowed the show to go on as designed. , ans also interesting amateur painter. Finally, the 1959 American National exposition in moscow, most famous for being the site of the kitchen debate, provided the venue of a show for 48 Young American painters, including those who had caused the most trouble over the last 12 years. Zorak, john levine. One man asserted that the show included 22 artists with affiliation in the communist party. The American Artist Professional League pointed to the lamentable, dreary, technically trivial array of paintings. But, as has been increasingly the case throughout the 1950s, influential voices and culture and government spoke up in support. Score in art,5 the usia did not demand prior approval and in the end refused to withdraw the show. So in the our program, modernism went from being a parent in taste,to being an elite the art wets being use to tell the soviet people who we were as a culture. There was an interesting article in the Atlantic Monthly right after the show premiered by the show,o curator the the way the soviet people would come in and say they were terrible, then come back again and again and ask more questions. They knew they were supposed to express discussed with them because that was the line but they were interested in what was going on,. Things worked a little differently it another program, which became an urgent priority as the cold war began. The soviets had long exported their ideas through subsidized have, and by 1950, produced and distributed over 40 million books abroad, mostly a short history of the communist party. Was years later the ussr producing 40 million books a year. 1952, the psychological strategy board, associated with the cia, warned that the largest selling book in the world with the possible exception of the bible has been a short history of the communist party. During the cold war, the United States made books available to foreign audiences. At libraries abroad, through marketbased export initiative, and through to government directed project to translate and sell american books. There were several ways of giving books to audiences abroad. Somewhere obvious, some were obvious. A bunch of ways. The intended audience for the program was decidedly the intellectual elite, judged by the programs directors to be an initely better target, included in these programs counter the charge that the United States is a cultural show them as a wellmeaning liberal democracy whose institutions insured a mature path despite whatever shortcomings it might exhibit. Of all the branches of the cold war modernist programs, this was by far the most conservative in the most tentative in how it used modernism. The generally conservative attitude toward american modernism makes it particularly striking that the modernist author who played the biggest part, and in fact contribute more to the Cultural Diplomacy Program than any other, William Faulkner. Has works are notoriously difficult, and they highlight the one topic that the United States most wanted to avoid the racial situation in the south. Faulkners eloquent 1915 nobel prize address melded with trumans campaign of truth message, arguing that the soviets were the greatest threat to peace in the world and that only the humanistic values of free people could stave off the threat of destruction hanging over the earth. Falconers prestige abroad, particularly among foreign writers, made him a very powerful cultural ambassador. In 1950, his reputation was just starting to get better. Falconer was published in 1956, saying that all these novels are one world. It was important and rebuilding his reputation because he was notorious for being a dirty books writer. Wascode in hollywood imposed because of a falconer novel. A faulkner novel. He didnt even want to collect his nobel prize. He would travel abroad frequently on behalf of the usia. I really do like this story. When he was told he got the nobel prize, he said that is wonderful. They said will you come to accept the prize . The farm wont take care of itself. They had to have the swedish ambassador call him a couple times. Hes like, no, we have work to do. Finally they had to get a woman, who someone needs to write a biography of, a state Department Staffer who was a real pioneer and cultural diplomacy, also married to the governor of puerto rico,