I am just passing time here, trying to offer up new material for daily readers. The Columbine piece has absorbed me. The details are engrossing – they meant for that piece of professional mind-f***** to be deeply embedded in every kid’s head in the country. Today I have a rather pleasant task, watching Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, this time with eyes wide open. Moore is filthy – that is – Moore is controlled opposition, which is why we even see his movies. True subversives don’t make it to mainstream theaters. When I first watched that movie, I thought it interesting, I thought he was unfair to Charlton Heston, and for sure did not know he was ‘in’ on the Columbine hoax.
In the meantime, I want to re-post a comment from the Hampton’s piece below that grabbed my interest. I will leave off the name, but the comment is public, so re-posting it is OK, in my mind. If the writer objects, I will take this piece down. Here it is:
“Rising the name of the Hamptons remotely asks if the current view on twentieth century art is upside down? Could the 1950’s Abstract Expressionist Jackson Pollock have afforded “$17 ice cream” (sic), inflation adjusted, when according to urban myth he moved to the Hamptons in the 1950’s because his paintings weren’t selling and that’s what struggling creative people do, move to the poorer parts of town like the potato farms of the Hamptons when your article otherwise illustrates it’s already established well to do past. Perhaps if Pollack were any poorer he would have had to move further east living in a shack on Cape Cod doing “drip art” paint jobs on Jaguars to make ends meet.
So if the Hamptons were already secluded that may imply he was not poor to live there. Taking a leap expand that to the rest of the Abstract Expressionists on how they made a living as avant-garde artists and taking it further out why New York City supposedly inherited the Paris art style. (1913 was a pivotal year in art history after John Quinn helped repeal the tariff on imported art making it possible to market overstocked European art on American buyers and with the help of the Ashcan painter William Glackens along with Quinn, letting his fellow artists shoot themselves in the foot organizing the “Woodstock” of that era, the 1913 Amory Show. European ‘Modern Art’ becomes fashionable and American art’s appeal declines all the way past Abstract Expressionism.)
The above is my opinion and question whether Pollack could have afforded to live in the Hampton’s then on a painter’s commission (not the service house painter alluded to in the article). I never had lunch with Pollack nor could I even afford the ice cream.”
Many of us at this blog have read Frances Stonor Saunders’ work The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. If not, do get a copy. I am not letting mine go, as it is packed with startling information, like CIA getting much of its early funding by taking a rake off the top of Marshall Program money.
But CIA’s push was to debase art. Why? I guess that is food for commenters. I have my notions, as do others.
PS: I am yet to understand why “$17 ice cream” earned a (sic).