在文化冷戰(zhàn)時期，間諜機構(gòu)是怎樣利用毫不知情的藝術(shù)家，比如波洛克和德克寧的呢?

　　幾個世紀以來，在藝術(shù)圈里，這要么是個流言要么就是個笑話，但是現(xiàn)在被確定為事實了。中央情報局利用美國的現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)作品作為冷戰(zhàn)時期的一種武器，這些被利用的畫家包括以下這些：杰克遜波洛克，羅伯特馬瑟韋爾，威廉庫寧和馬克羅斯克。CIA就像文藝復(fù)興時期的貴族一樣提拔著這些畫家，雖然手法比較隱蔽，但培養(yǎng)和捧紅美國抽象派畫作的項目已經(jīng)持續(xù)20多年了。

　　這種關(guān)系相當不可思議。曾經(jīng)就有這樣一個時期，在二十世紀五六十年代，大部分的美國人都不喜歡甚至輕視現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)。杜魯門總統(tǒng)總結(jié)那個普遍的觀點，就是：”如果那就是藝術(shù)，那么我就是霍屯督了。”至于那些畫家本身，他們大多都曾是共產(chǎn)黨員，麥卡錫時代的美國對這種人格外排斥，可見這樣的人絕不是美國政府樂于提供支持的對象。(譯注：霍屯督，非洲一種族，也是是歐洲白種人對非洲黑人的蔑稱)

　　為什么中央情報局要支持他們呢?因為在冷戰(zhàn)期間美蘇嘴炮的時候，這個新藝術(shù)可以被拿來當做美國人富有創(chuàng)造力、知識自由和文化力量的證據(jù)。至于俄羅斯藝術(shù)，由于它”被禁錮在共產(chǎn)主義之下“，自然是無法和美國相提并論的。

　　關(guān)于這一政策存在的傳言和爭論有很多年了，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)第一次被前CIA官員證實，不知情的藝術(shù)家，美國新的藝術(shù)家在意向所謂“長束縛”的政策下暗中受到提升——CIA安排了相似的方法來間接支持Encounter雜志，由Stephen Spender所編輯。

　　由于擔心共產(chǎn)主義對許多西方知識分子和藝術(shù)家依然具有吸引力，于是中情局就設(shè)立了一個“宣傳資產(chǎn)清單”分支機構(gòu)，該分支機構(gòu)在頂峰時期可以影響總共800多家報紙、雜志和公共信息組織。他們開玩笑說該機構(gòu)就好比Wurlitzer牌點唱機：當中情局按下按鈕時，就可以聽到自己想聽到的世界上任何角落的“音樂”。

　　下一個關(guān)鍵步驟是在1950年，當IOD(國際組織部門)在Tom Braden組織下建立，這個部門補貼喬治·奧威爾的《動物莊園》的動畫版，它贊助了美國爵士樂藝術(shù)家，歌劇演出，波士頓交響樂團的國際旅游項目，其特工被安插在電影業(yè)、出版社中，還偽裝成著名旅行雜志Fodor的旅行作家。還有，正如我們現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)知道的，該機構(gòu)還促進了美國的無政府主義先鋒運動，也就是抽象表現(xiàn)主義。

　　起初，美國政府想以更開放的嘗試來支持年輕的美國藝術(shù)。為反駁蘇聯(lián)認為美國是文化沙漠的說法，1947年國務(wù)院組織并籌辦了一個名為“促進美國藝術(shù)”的巡回國際展覽會。但這引起了國內(nèi)的不滿，并促使杜魯門說出了關(guān)于霍屯督的那番話，而一位憤憤不平的國會議員則聲明：“我們美國人真是太蠢，掏出稅金來花在這種垃圾上頭。”

　　美國政府現(xiàn)在進退兩難。主流的庸俗品味，再加上麥卡錫對非主流異端歇斯底里的抨擊，使政府深陷尷尬的境地。此事也使人不再敢相信美國是一個“文化博大精深的民主國家”。另外，文化霸權(quán)從20世紀30年代就開始從巴黎轉(zhuǎn)向紐約，美國本想借此事鞏固其逐漸到手的文化霸權(quán)，如今似乎也難上加難。為擺脫窘境，中央情報局被創(chuàng)立。

　　這種聯(lián)系或許沒有想象中那么奇特。這時新機構(gòu)的工作人員主要是耶魯大學(xué)和哈佛大學(xué)畢業(yè)生，他們當中有很多收集藝術(shù)品并且在業(yè)余時間寫小說，比起由麥卡錫主義或者J·埃德加·胡佛的聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局所統(tǒng)治的政治世界，這個機構(gòu)是自由主義的避風港。如果說有哪一個官方機構(gòu)專門吹捧紐約畫派的列寧主義者、托洛茨基分子和酒鬼，那肯定就是CIA無誤了。

　　直到現(xiàn)在，仍然沒有什么第一手的證據(jù)證明這之間的聯(lián)系存在，但是一個前任的情報機構(gòu)內(nèi)的官員唐納德·詹姆士首次打破了沉默。是的，他說，中情局曾經(jīng)將抽象表現(xiàn)主義藝術(shù)視為一個機會，是的沒錯，中情局確實將其付諸了實踐。

　　“考慮到抽象表現(xiàn)主義藝術(shù)本身，我希望我能夠說CIA的天才們發(fā)明它們只是為了看看將來在紐約和soho商業(yè)區(qū)會發(fā)生什么!” 唐納德·詹姆士開玩笑的說。“但是我想，我們所做的真實意圖是在于造成一種反差，它讓人們感覺社會主義下的現(xiàn)實主義藝術(shù)相較抽象表現(xiàn)主義這種藝術(shù)形式看起來更加形式化，充滿了強制性和各種限制，這種反差則是通過一系列展覽來體現(xiàn)的。”

　　“在某種程度上我們的這種想法得到支持是因為，在那段時間里的莫斯科會對任何形式的反對自己僵化的模式的想法給予強烈的譴責。正因此，人們可以充分準確地得出這樣的結(jié)論，凡是蘇聯(lián)人強烈且笨拙地反對著的事情，就值得我們通過某種方式去支持它。”

　　為了利用美國左翼先鋒派達到不可告人的意圖，中情局必須確保自己的贊助不會曝光。“這種事情要通過間接的方式來做，”詹姆士先生說，“這樣的話，使杰克遜•波洛克這類人通過政治審查就不會有什么問題，讓這些人參加一個組織來做某件事情也不會有問題。并且我們不應(yīng)該太接近他們，因為他們中大部分人尤其對政府不太尊重，對中情局就更無尊重可言了。這些自以為更接近莫斯科而不是華盛頓的人，如果想利用他們的話，也許這樣做較為適宜。”

　　這就是所謂的“長皮帶”政策。1950年中情局發(fā)起運動的重頭戲就是成為文化自由的大會，利用中情局的資金，由中情局的探員舉行一場集合了知識分子、作家、歷史學(xué)家、詩人和藝術(shù)家參與的藝術(shù)狂歡宴。這場運動發(fā)起之初是為了抵抗莫斯科和它西方“同僚”的文化攻擊。然而在鼎盛時期，竟然在35個國家設(shè)立了辦事處，并且出版了二十多本雜志，其中包括《相遇》。

　　文化自由大會成為中情局的理想化前線，通過推廣抽象表現(xiàn)主義來促進某些隱秘的意圖。它成為巡回展覽的官方贊助人，其雜志還為當代美國繪畫藝術(shù)的評論家們提供了有用平臺;所有人，包括這些藝術(shù)家們，大家都被蒙在鼓里。

　　這個組織在20世紀50年代前后舉辦了好幾場以抽象表現(xiàn)主義為主題的展覽。其中最有影響力的是名為“當代美國繪畫”展覽，在1958年到1959年間在歐洲好幾個大城市的舉行過。其它的一些重要展覽包括1955年的“美國現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)”和“20世紀美國巨作”。

　　為抽象派的展覽來回巡演花費巨大，所以中情局求助于一些有錢人和私人博物館館主。其中最著名的是納爾遜•洛克菲勒，他的母親與別人合資建立了位于紐約的現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)博物館。而洛克菲勒正是這家博物館的董事長，所以他稱這座博物館叫“媽媽的博物館”，他也是抽象表現(xiàn)主義的熱心支持者(他將之稱為“自由企業(yè)繪畫”)。他的博物館與文化自由國會簽約，組織并協(xié)辦了大部分重要的藝術(shù)秀。

　　現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)博物館和中情局還存在一些其它的聯(lián)系。包括威廉•佩利，這位哥倫比亞廣播公司網(wǎng)絡(luò)的董事長，同時也是中情局的元勛，就是博物館國際項目的管理班子中成員之一。喬克•海•惠特尼，以前是戰(zhàn)略情報局的老前輩，也擔任博物館的托管人。還有湯姆•布雷頓，中情局國際組織部門的第一任首席，在1949年曾擔任過博物館的執(zhí)行秘書。

　　現(xiàn)在布雷頓先生已經(jīng)80歲了，居住在弗吉尼亞州的伍德布里吉，他的房子被抽象表現(xiàn)主義的作品擠得滿滿當當，幾只阿爾薩斯巨型犬在那兒守著。他向我們解釋了這場運動的目的。

　　“我們希望能把那些作家、音樂家和藝術(shù)家團結(jié)在一起，來證明西方和美國為言論自由和知識成就所做的努力，而不是像蘇聯(lián)那樣，關(guān)于你說的話，做的事甚至畫的畫都有很許多刻板的規(guī)定。我想這是中情局最重要的部門，并且在冷戰(zhàn)中發(fā)揮了巨大的作用。”

　　他承認這個部門的確對外保密，因為大眾對先鋒派懷有敵意：“我們想做的事很難通過國會這一關(guān)，比如到國外舉辦藝術(shù)展覽，把交響樂團派到國外演出或者在國外出版雜志。這就是為什么要秘密進行的原因之一。為了鼓勵開放我們不得不秘密行事。”

　　如果這意味著我們將對本世紀的米開朗琪羅們扮演教皇的角色的話，反而更好解釋了：“藝術(shù)需要教皇或其他有錢人的支持才行”，布雷頓先生說。“也許許多世紀過去以后，人們會說，“瞧，這就是西斯廷教堂，世界上最美的藝術(shù)創(chuàng)造!”自從第一位藝術(shù)家得到第一位百萬富翁或者第一位主教的支持以來，一直是文明面臨的一個問題。如果沒有百萬富翁們或者主教們的支持，我們今天就不會有藝術(shù)了。”

　　如果沒有贊助的話，抽象表現(xiàn)主義還會成為戰(zhàn)后時期占主導(dǎo)地位的藝術(shù)運動嗎?答案是肯定的。同樣地，當我們在欣賞抽象表現(xiàn)主義的繪畫時，覺得被中情局欺騙這種想法也是錯誤的。

　　但是瞧瞧這項藝術(shù)運動的結(jié)局：銀行的大理石大廳，機場，市政府大樓，會議室以及不錯的畫廊里，都有抽象派表現(xiàn)主義的藝術(shù)品。對于推崇冷戰(zhàn)的人來說，這些畫作算是他們展現(xiàn)文化和系統(tǒng)的一個標志。

　　秘密行動

　　1958年，“新美國繪畫”巡回展在巴黎開幕，展品包括有Pollock(杰克遜波洛克或波拉克，1912-1956，紐約動作畫派領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人和抽象派代表畫家)、de Kooning(威廉德庫寧，1904-1997，美國抽象派藝術(shù)家)和Motherwell(羅伯特馬瑟韋爾，1915-1991以抽象繪畫和有關(guān)現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)的論著而著名)等的作品。泰特藝術(shù)館(位于倫敦)渴望作為下一站展會承辦地，但負擔不起。晚些時候，朱利葉斯.弗萊希曼，一個美國的百萬富翁和藝術(shù)愛好者，出錢介入了此事并把展覽帶到了倫敦。

　　弗萊希曼提供的資金并不是他自己的，而是CIA的。通過一個弗萊希曼任總裁的叫做法菲爾德基金的組織提供資金。但這基金會根本不是一個百萬富翁的慈善機構(gòu)，而是一個提供CIA資金的秘密渠道。

　　于是，在美國納稅人的負擔下，展會被轉(zhuǎn)移到了倫敦，毫不知情的泰德藝術(shù)館、公眾和藝術(shù)家就微妙的服務(wù)于冷戰(zhàn)宣傳目的了。前中情局人員湯姆.布瑞登描述了是如何建立類似法菲爾德基金會這樣的資金渠道的。“我們會找到紐約某個知名的富人，并會告之“我們想建立一個基金會”，我們會告訴他我們想要做什么并要求他保守秘密，他如果說“可以，我愿意干”，然后我們就會發(fā)出一個帶有他名字的公函，這樣一個基金會就成立了。這真是一個相當簡單的手段。”

　　朱利葉斯.弗萊希曼很適合這個角色。像幾個與CIA關(guān)系密切的大人物一樣，在紐約，他是現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)館的國際規(guī)劃委員會成員。

　　原文：Modern art was CIA 'weapon'

　　Revealed: how the spy agency used unwitting artists such as Pollock and de Kooning in a cultural Cold War

　　By Frances Stonor Saunders

　　Sunday, 22 October 1995

　　For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

　　The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- com- munists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

　　Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

　　The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the "long leash" - arrangements similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender.

　　The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.

　　The next key step came in 1950, when the International Organisations Division (IOD) was set up under Tom Braden. It was this office which subsidised the animated version of George Orwell's Animal Farm, which sponsored American jazz artists, opera recitals, the Boston Symphony Orchestra's international touring programme. Its agents were placed in the film industry, in publishing houses, even as travel writers for the celebrated Fodor guides. And, we now know, it promoted America's anarchic avant-garde movement, Abstract Expressionism.

　　Initially, more open attempts were made to support the new American art. In 1947 the State Department organised and paid for a touring international exhibition entitled "Advancing American Art", with the aim of rebutting Soviet suggestions that America was a cultural desert. But the show caused outrage at home, prompting Truman to make his Hottentot remark and one bitter congressman to declare: "I am just a dumb American who pays taxes for this kind of trash." The tour had to be cancelled.

　　The US government now faced a dilemma. This philistinism, combined with Joseph McCarthy's hysterical denunciations of all that was avant-garde or unorthodox, was deeply embarrassing. It discredited the idea that America was a sophisticated, culturally rich democracy. It also prevented the US government from consolidating the shift in cultural supremacy from Paris to New York since the 1930s. To resolve this dilemma, the CIA was brought in.

　　The connection is not quite as odd as it might appear. At this time the new agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, many of whom collected art and wrote novels in their spare time, was a haven of liberalism when compared with a political world dominated by McCarthy or with J Edgar Hoover's FBI. If any official institution was in a position to celebrate the collection of Leninists, Trotskyites and heavy drinkers that made up the New York School, it was the CIA.

　　Until now there has been no first-hand evidence to prove that this connection was made, but for the first time a former case officer, Donald Jameson, has broken the silence. Yes, he says, the agency saw Abstract Expressionism as an opportunity, and yes, it ran with it.

　　"Regarding Abstract Expressionism, I'd love to be able to say that the CIA invented it just to see what happens in New York and downtown SoHo tomorrow!" he joked. "But I think that what we did really was to recognise the difference. It was recognised that Abstract Expression- ism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and more rigid and confined than it was. And that relationship was exploited in some of the exhibitions.

　　"In a way our understanding was helped because Moscow in those days was very vicious in its denunciation of any kind of non-conformity to its own very rigid patterns. And so one could quite adequately and accurately reason that anything they criticised that much and that heavy- handedly was worth support one way or another."

　　To pursue its underground interest in America's lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. "Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes," Mr Jameson explained, "so that there wouldn't be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn't have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA. If you had to use people who considered themselves one way or another to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, well, so much the better perhaps."

　　This was the "long leash". The centrepiece of the CIA campaign became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a vast jamboree of intellectuals, writers, historians, poets, and artists which was set up with CIA funds in 1950 and run by a CIA agent. It was the beach-head from which culture could be defended against the attacks of Moscow and its "fellow travellers" in the West. At its height, it had offices in 35 countries and published more than two dozen magazines, including Encounter.

　　The Congress for Cultural Freedom also gave the CIA the ideal front to promote its covert interest in Abstract Expressionism. It would be the official sponsor of touring exhibitions; its magazines would provide useful platforms for critics favourable to the new American painting; and no one, the artists included, would be any the wiser.

　　This organisation put together several exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the 1950s. One of the most significant, "The New American Painting", visited every big European city in 1958-59. Other influential shows included "Modern Art in the United States" (1955) and "Masterpieces of the Twentieth Century" (1952).

　　Because Abstract Expressionism was expensive to move around and exhibit, millionaires and museums were called into play. Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art in New York. As president of what he called "Mummy's museum", Rockefeller was one of the biggest backers of Abstract Expressionism (which he called "free enterprise painting"). His museum was contracted to the Congress for Cultural Freedom to organise and curate most of its important art shows.

　　The museum was also linked to the CIA by several other bridges. William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA, sat on the members' board of the museum's International Programme. John Hay Whitney, who had served in the agency's wartime predecessor, the OSS, was its chairman. And Tom Braden, first chief of the CIA's International Organisations Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.

　　Now in his eighties, Mr Braden lives in Woodbridge, Virginia, in a house packed with Abstract Expressionist works and guarded by enormous Alsatians. He explained the purpose of the IOD.

　　"We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had, and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War."

　　He confirmed that his division had acted secretly because of the public hostility to the avant-garde: "It was very difficult to get Congress to go along with some of the things we wanted to do - send art abroad, send symphonies abroad, publish magazines abroad. That's one of the reasons it had to be done covertly. It had to be a secret. In order to encourage openness we had to be secret."

　　If this meant playing pope to this century's Michelangelos, well, all the better: "It takes a pope or somebody with a lot of money to recognise art and to support it," Mr Braden said. "And after many centuries people say, 'Oh look! the Sistine Chapel, the most beautiful creation on Earth!' It's a problem that civilisation has faced ever since the first artist and the first millionaire or pope who supported him. And yet if it hadn't been for the multi-millionaires or the popes, we wouldn't have had the art."

　　Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA.

　　But look where this art ended up: in the marble halls of banks, in airports, in city halls, boardrooms and great galleries. For the Cold Warriors who promoted them, these paintings were a logo, a signature for their culture and system which they wanted to display everywhere that counted. They succeeded.

　　* The full story of the CIA and modern art is told in 'Hidden Hands' on Channel 4 next Sunday at 8pm. The first programme in the series is screened tonight. Frances Stonor Saunders is writing a book on the cultural Cold War.

　　Covert Operation

　　In 1958 the touring exhibition "The New American Painting", including works by Pollock, de Kooning, Motherwell and others, was on show in Paris. The Tate Gallery was keen to have it next, but could not afford to bring it over. Late in the day, an American millionaire and art lover, Julius Fleischmann, stepped in with the cash and the show was brought to London.

　　The money that Fleischmann provided, however, was not his but the CIA's. It came through a body called the Farfield Foundation, of which Fleischmann was president, but far from being a millionaire's charitable arm, the foundation was a secret conduit for CIA funds.

　　So, unknown to the Tate, the public or the artists, the exhibition was transferred to London at American taxpayers' expense to serve subtle Cold War propaganda purposes. A former CIA man, Tom Braden, described how such conduits as the Farfield Foundation were set up. "We would go to somebody in New York who was a well-known rich person and we would say, 'We want to set up a foundation.' We would tell him what we were trying to do and pledge him to secrecy, and he would say, 'Of course I'll do it,' and then you would publish a letterhead and his name would be on it and there would be a foundation. It was really a pretty simple device."

　　Julius Fleischmann was well placed for such a role. He sat on the board of the International Programme of the Museum of Modern Art in New York - as did several powerful figures close to the CIA.

　　http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

× 烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號