Budd Hopkins, Abstract Expressionism, Hypnotic Regression, Screen Memories, American Exceptionalism, and Recurrent Problematic Patronage in the Arts and Sciences
I always tend to think about CIA involvement in abstract expressionism as similar structures that propped up artists throughout history: Churches (and royalty lol) had the money, so Michelangelo painted angels. Simply, the CIA was the new church. Artists will pretty much go where the money is for obvious reasons--some more willing than others lol. To my mind, that doesn't really have a totalizing impact what comes next. You don't have to believe in god to enjoy The Creation of Adam and what the artist was doing with the clay provided, and you don't have to believe in the cult of American individualism to enjoy an Untitled #4. Just my take.
EDIT: Also, loved this article! Forgot to mention that real quick lol
I think I largely agree, I try to say Hopkins had a genuine appreciation and talent for the art style. But at the same time it was a soft power tool. The art is enjoyable, I'm not hater of abstract expressionism, but it is often quite politically distant, focused only on amorphous interior worlds. That the CIA sought to use it as a bastion of American art supremacy is unlikely to be just a random choice. Let alone the journals they created and the critics they urged to promote it. The artworks on their own can be separated from the cultural cold war but I think looking at the broad movement and the "whys" of the situation is necessary even if the art is good and the artists were earnest.
Oh, I agree, I think the CIA history in art that you discuss is really fascinating and helps shed light on how no art movement happens ahistorically or inside a vacuum. And the CIA certainly saw a lot of benefit in championing the movement as American art supremacy, but I don't think it's quite right to allow them to define it. They may have championed Pollock because they and others loved (crafted/propagated) this "cowboy" narrative surrounding his art, but that doesn't necessarily mean a ton in my eyes. Much of the ground work for abstract expressionism was already long established before all the CIA fun. Sobel and Miro and many others were already doing the work, the CIA simply found it politically expedient to craft a narrative and used it as a tool, but that doesn't make it a tool, which I think is an important distinction. Also, I would argue that a lot of abstract expressionism isn't politically distant. One reading of it is that the movement was a direct response to the failure of WWII and everything that led up to those failures; what did all the old rules get us? It was a transgression. But, like so much, markets and propaganda begin to appropriate the techniques and muddle that transgression until it isn't one lol
This is one of those posts that reminds me why I keep coming back to Getting Spooked. This is a fresh take, an important take, and a plausible take. Quite a rare trifecta of achievement in ufological circles these days.
I too watched the Netflix docu on Napolitano and Hopkins and came to similar conclusions, btw.
I somehow doubt Hopkins's rejection of human military involvement in abductions was particularly related to his personal politics. This is a guy who lived in Greenwich village in the 70s (then again, so did Ingo Swann).
I also feel there's a very strong link between abstract forms of art and an interest in the paranormal. Many of the artists in the avant garde movements of the late XIXth and XXth century were very interested in spirituality, Eastern philosophy and afterlife communication. And one could argue abstract art is a much better tool to express the ineffable quality of altered states of consciousness, or communing with other forms of consciousness.
The ultimate irony in Hopkins is that, for a man who had no problem opening his mind to express himself in totally novel ways of perception, he was a total square (pun very much intended) when it came to rationalizing one of the most complex states of perception a human can experiment--what we stil call "alien abduction."
I think the blind spot to the military answer is inherently political, because across the American political spectrum, especially within ufology, it will be completely ignored. Living in Greenwich Village means very little, plenty of artistic types/hippies have this blind spot, especially in the abstract art movement as shown in the Saunders book I refer to quite a bit.
That's to say, I don't think there's any malign behavior at play in his art or abduction research (I think his intentions were earnest) but there's a reason certain narratives get signal boosted in both fields and others don't get funded/promoted at all. That's more what I'm trying to say, and that was largely the CIA's intention in the art world. The motivations can be partially parsed from what type of art/abduction research doesn't receive the big bucks from intelligence agencies or philanthropists.
I think the interior world, altered states, what have you, are important facets of the human experience. But again, it becomes navel gazing if that's the only facet that's considered. The CIA benefits from that, it's literally a forest for the trees scenario. And it's the preferred explanation for abduction experiences to the vast majority of the field, I worry, for similar reasons. I think the connection between abstract art and new age ideas that you point out is because they both arise from specific frames of mind that are valuable but heavily disconnected from material circumstances ala New Thought.
I always tend to think about CIA involvement in abstract expressionism as similar structures that propped up artists throughout history: Churches (and royalty lol) had the money, so Michelangelo painted angels. Simply, the CIA was the new church. Artists will pretty much go where the money is for obvious reasons--some more willing than others lol. To my mind, that doesn't really have a totalizing impact what comes next. You don't have to believe in god to enjoy The Creation of Adam and what the artist was doing with the clay provided, and you don't have to believe in the cult of American individualism to enjoy an Untitled #4. Just my take.
EDIT: Also, loved this article! Forgot to mention that real quick lol
I think I largely agree, I try to say Hopkins had a genuine appreciation and talent for the art style. But at the same time it was a soft power tool. The art is enjoyable, I'm not hater of abstract expressionism, but it is often quite politically distant, focused only on amorphous interior worlds. That the CIA sought to use it as a bastion of American art supremacy is unlikely to be just a random choice. Let alone the journals they created and the critics they urged to promote it. The artworks on their own can be separated from the cultural cold war but I think looking at the broad movement and the "whys" of the situation is necessary even if the art is good and the artists were earnest.
Oh, I agree, I think the CIA history in art that you discuss is really fascinating and helps shed light on how no art movement happens ahistorically or inside a vacuum. And the CIA certainly saw a lot of benefit in championing the movement as American art supremacy, but I don't think it's quite right to allow them to define it. They may have championed Pollock because they and others loved (crafted/propagated) this "cowboy" narrative surrounding his art, but that doesn't necessarily mean a ton in my eyes. Much of the ground work for abstract expressionism was already long established before all the CIA fun. Sobel and Miro and many others were already doing the work, the CIA simply found it politically expedient to craft a narrative and used it as a tool, but that doesn't make it a tool, which I think is an important distinction. Also, I would argue that a lot of abstract expressionism isn't politically distant. One reading of it is that the movement was a direct response to the failure of WWII and everything that led up to those failures; what did all the old rules get us? It was a transgression. But, like so much, markets and propaganda begin to appropriate the techniques and muddle that transgression until it isn't one lol
This is one of those posts that reminds me why I keep coming back to Getting Spooked. This is a fresh take, an important take, and a plausible take. Quite a rare trifecta of achievement in ufological circles these days.
I too watched the Netflix docu on Napolitano and Hopkins and came to similar conclusions, btw.
I somehow doubt Hopkins's rejection of human military involvement in abductions was particularly related to his personal politics. This is a guy who lived in Greenwich village in the 70s (then again, so did Ingo Swann).
I also feel there's a very strong link between abstract forms of art and an interest in the paranormal. Many of the artists in the avant garde movements of the late XIXth and XXth century were very interested in spirituality, Eastern philosophy and afterlife communication. And one could argue abstract art is a much better tool to express the ineffable quality of altered states of consciousness, or communing with other forms of consciousness.
The ultimate irony in Hopkins is that, for a man who had no problem opening his mind to express himself in totally novel ways of perception, he was a total square (pun very much intended) when it came to rationalizing one of the most complex states of perception a human can experiment--what we stil call "alien abduction."
I think the blind spot to the military answer is inherently political, because across the American political spectrum, especially within ufology, it will be completely ignored. Living in Greenwich Village means very little, plenty of artistic types/hippies have this blind spot, especially in the abstract art movement as shown in the Saunders book I refer to quite a bit.
That's to say, I don't think there's any malign behavior at play in his art or abduction research (I think his intentions were earnest) but there's a reason certain narratives get signal boosted in both fields and others don't get funded/promoted at all. That's more what I'm trying to say, and that was largely the CIA's intention in the art world. The motivations can be partially parsed from what type of art/abduction research doesn't receive the big bucks from intelligence agencies or philanthropists.
I think the interior world, altered states, what have you, are important facets of the human experience. But again, it becomes navel gazing if that's the only facet that's considered. The CIA benefits from that, it's literally a forest for the trees scenario. And it's the preferred explanation for abduction experiences to the vast majority of the field, I worry, for similar reasons. I think the connection between abstract art and new age ideas that you point out is because they both arise from specific frames of mind that are valuable but heavily disconnected from material circumstances ala New Thought.
Fine article. The compare/contrast AE with SR is quite the brilliant stroke, I must say.
In my opinion, both Hopkins and David Jacobs are swine, and they were a disservice to the study of UFOs.