The Arts in New York City

I was just thinking- the whole attitude of the ’60s was a reaction to the war. Because they felt that they had been forced into the war and into accepting responsibility for far more than usual for their age, they overcompensated and created a society with no responsibility- where you just live and have fun. Do people tend to react that way also with personal oppression? If a person feels stifled their whole live, do they go crazy the minute they’re given any room to let loose? And another thing, the extreme reaction seems a little out of control- would there have been a healthier way to express their feeling of frustration, one that would’ve been less destructive?

In the interview, the soldier was asked why he shot all those people and he answered that it was for revenge for his fellow American soldiers who died. Did it ever cross his mind that he was shooting women and children, who never even set foot on the battlefield? Didn’t he feel guilt when he started shooting at women who were trying to protect their children with their own bodies? They were pleading for their lives, but they didn’t even think twice as if the women and children weren’t even human beings to them. People tend to think that Americans are the ideal leaders, that they would never do anything like what the Nazi’s did, but in this killing of innocent people, it proves that not all people do the right things. Even if it is following orders, it still wasn’t right. The Nazi’s answered the same way that they were only following orders, but they were still punished for their crimes. The interviewed soldier’s punishment is probably to live his whole life with guilt and nightmares of the horrors of that day.

I noticed the same thing as Emily. But she’s right, he DIDN’T view them as human. He called them “gooks”–an extremely derogatory term for Vietnamese–and not people. That was one of the sickest things I’ve read in a long time, and I don’t care if he claims it was “revenge”…revenge is not on innocent people.

Of course, war could have really screwed his brain up that much. Who really knows? The 60s was a completely radically backlash to the society of the times–a society of war and exploitation–which is why they overcompensated with free love and peace and a world with no responsibilities. The drugs must not have helped much, either. XD

A really, really scary and sad time period.

Wars may bring out the absolute worst in people. For this soldier I think that’s partially due to how much easier it was for him to take an order rather than to go against one. Following orders seemed like his scapegoat to me. Since he wasn’t the only one doing it, he thought of it as a “natural thing.” Even if he was “brainwashed” or manipulated somehow, I don’t see any sense or reasoning in taking innocent lives.

I truly wonder if the soldier realized how inhumane he was while slaughtering babies and defenseless mothers.

History is bound to repeat itself if we don’t learn from our mistakes. During World War II (1939-1945), the Nazis brutally tortured and murdered millions of innocent victims. Were the Americans any better in Vietnam? As the interview suggests, the Americans too killed innocent women and children. Like the Nazis, Paul Meadlo (interviewed soldier), said that the troops were only following orders. Even though Meadlo tried to justify his actions there is no excuse for killing the innocent. He said that at the time he felt he was doing the right thing because killing the innocent Vietnamese was revenge for losing his friends in the war.
The antiwar and freedom for all atmosphere of the 1960s was in response to what was going on. Those who were opposed to Vietnam War and racial injustice banded together to protest the war and achieve civil rights. Peace loving groups where all could join in and not be judged was attractive because people wanted to escape the hatred. Unfortunately, war does bring out the worst in people and others feel they need to get away from it all (drugs and hippie gatherings).

The 60s were an odd time period, especially from what I can tell from the course pack readings. Woodstock was what seemed to be a magical phenomenon because everything was peaceful, and as the reading portrayed, there was no fighting, crying, etc. As displayed on writing, it was as if all the negativeness of the world was blocked out - even the Hell’s Angels helped out. However, its scary how people can be so different under different circumstances. The same Hell’s Angels who were so peaceful and loving at Woodstock, beat up those people at the Rolling Stones concert couple of months after.

As a response to the earlier posts, I thought Amy pointed out an excellent point through the need to escape from everything through “drugs and hippie gatherings”. However, as pessimistic as it may sound, it brings out a further question to whether hippies used drugs as an escape, or did they use the stress of the world as an excuse for drug use? I don’t doubt that the right thinking was behind this at first, but drugs do have an addictive nature, so who’s to say that nothing changed as time went on? What the soldiers did in Vietnam was horrible and perhaps in some cases, unforgiving. War inevitably leads to some sort of death, and the deaths of fellow soldiers, friends, and possibly even family members really would mess with a person’s mental health. Rage and the intent on revenge for deaths probably clouded their better judgment. I’m sure after everything they’ve gone through together, soldiers must have had a tight bond and they were like non-blood related siblings. The soldiers who were there to commit such horrid acts, like killing women, children, and babies,might have been following the “devil on their shoulder”, following some sort of “Code of Hammurabi” mentality.

I think that the trip to the museum was really a great addition to everything we talked about on the 1960s culture. It is always great to read about something such as the inspiring stories in the course packet or even researching something online but actually getting to see the different pieces of that era in person gives it a whole new feeling. I liked a lot of the art and didn’t understand some of it but overall it was nice to be able to experience the culture of the 60s and have the small details explained to us by the tour guide. Some of the art that i didn’t quite understand however was the large vinyl paint on the floor. It seemed like I could do that in my basement and instead of people guarding it as to keep people from stepping on it they would instead purposely be trying to step on it. I believe then that this is the beauty of art that many people might love something and be captivated by it and others will just look the other way.

Overall I enjoyed the visit to the museum but at some point all the bright colors (and the crowd) just overwhelmed me.
Going through the exhibit, I certainly felt the 3 versions of the 60’s that Professor Davis spoke about (trippy, turbulent, and tragic) at different times. but what stuck with me the most when i left the museum was how tragic it really was because of the vietnam war - which was depicted in “saigon”. This is the one that I found the most striking of all. When I read about the rape and the killing in “My Lai”, I did find it very disturbing but it was nothing to how I felt when i saw the painting. The whole brutality of the war just hit me (i dont know maybe cause it was visualized for me - the colors certainly added to it.) It made me just stand there, stare at the painting, and think about how low man can really sink in such times. I just couldn’t understand it …especially since the Americans went to war to stop communism so they can make things better for the people when they themselves were making it worse.

I enjoyed the exhibit at the Whitney because it really brought the 60’s to life. The photographs of events such as Woodstock and the massacres in Vietnam “transported” me back to the 60’s and confirmed that all that we had read about really DID happen.

However,I agree with Adiba that the exhibit was a bit overwhelming. Every piece of artwork was so colorful and so busy that there was no period of respite. There was no time or space to process the artwork. After leaving the exhibit, I didn’t remember specific pieces of art, rather just the collective unit.

I definitely agree with the above posts. The trip to the Whitney museum was a perfect way to learn about 1960s; it allowed us to actually be placed in a setting that was so reminiscent of the “trippy, turbulent, and tragic” decade, at least in the artistic sense. This, I think was probably the only shortcoming of this otherwise superb exhibit.
The exhibit almost focused too much on the art, characterized by bright, contrasting colors and a strange almost overindulgence in or overuse of sexuality. Then again, these new ideas were characteristic of this decade so it is only fitting that the artwork reflects them. This is not, in any way to diminish the value or importance of this revolutionary art, but I just wish the decade was captured in more than just one.
So, while there were several references to the historical, or academic part of the 60s, it would have been nice to see some more. However, I have to say the tour guide did a great job of filling in anything not explicitly seen. By far the most moving piece was the Saigon piece–a work that instantly reminded viewers of the violence that also characterizes this decade.

Today’s movie was really eye opening. A lot of the songs were really familiar and are still played today, but I never associated them with the 60’s before. I also really liked the speech about freedom at the end. Those students were really united and determined to get their rights, and they stood up for each other. They’re the most unselfish people I’ve ever heard of.

I feel the clips gave a well rounded view of the 1960s, from Woodstock to Berkeley and the issues of the decade including civil rights and the Vietnam War. What struck me was Jimi Hendrix’s version of the “Star Spangled Banner.” In the midst of the melody there were harsh sounds, almost like screams. It was almost as if America was crying out in protest of its involvement in the Vietnam War and the ongoing violence and hatred in the country. If this is what Hendrix meant to say through the dissonant sounds that he played on the guitar in the midst of the “Star Spangled Banner,” I think it was a clever way to get his message across.

What interested me was the music. I was surprised that the singers were so politically involved. They didn’t hold themselves back at all. As they were all doing their own thing, every singer expressed his or herself not just with words, but with physical movements. The behaviors exhibited remind me of the saying “actions speak louder than words.”
It’s no wonder the Berkeley students made such a huge impact.
-Overall, I loved how the students blocked the police car and took turns carefully getting on and off, not to damage the car.

Can one consider Bob Marley a hippie? From the segment shown yesterday, it was clear that Marley did contribute to the counterculture movement of the 60s, but his music struck me as something a lot more soothing and inviting than those tracks featuring Janis Joplin or Hendrix. Although I did enjoy Hendrix’s rendition of the “Star Spangled Banner” and Janis’ “Cry Baby”, these songs seemed to bombard the listener with a barrage of insane guitar licks that provided instant gratification. These songs focused on conveying the intensity of emotions felt by the performer towards the issues of the day rather than revealing a clear cut message through the lyrics, or in Hendrix’s case, lack thereof. However, what I loved about Marley’s music is how it first lured you in with it’s catchy rhythm, and despite the some what angry, yet empowering, message of “Get up, Stand up”, it remained a song easy to listen to, and even easier to party to. it just goes to show Marley’s talent in using his music as a vehicle for his political (get up stand up), moral(one love), and social(let’s get together and feel alright)ideas of the time.

Wow. I think the movie segments were great. It is so different actually seeing such intense passion and determination in almost action, whether it was singing or protesting, as opposed to simply reading about it. To say it simply, the music was fantastic. Each musician was able to express a political or social belief through ingeniously written yet catchy, music. I agree with the above post in that this music was completely empowering and sent a message like none other.
I was also surprised by the extent to which the Berkeley students carried out the protests. That amount of dedication and passion for a cause from that many students is simply incredible.
By showing various events, from Woodstock to poetry readings by Ginsberg, I think this movie showing truly captured the radical spirit of the 1960s.

I think these clips really captured the radical counterculture of the 60s

Even though I watched the clips by myself and didn’t get to see all the clips that were shown, I felt like I got a look in the past. It was great to see well-privileged students stand up for minority groups. It’s something not a lot of people see these days. They felt like they were an oppressed class, so they felt that they needed to do something. The students didn’t stop until they had an agreement and they didn’t give up at all. When the school took away their political committees at school, they still opened up tables to show that they can’t be suppressed.Even when the police came, everyone worked together and stopped the police from driving away. What surprised me was that the students all took turns to speak into the microphone on the police car and before they got up there, they took off their shoes. They were respectful, but they were still firm in their protest. Not only were there 800 students that came together, but they all had the same goal in mind. It’s hard to come across that these days. The students got to their goal by using civil disobedience and it worked. Also, I felt the sixties were very open because Ginsberg made a poem while under the influence of LSD. Nobody made a big deal that he was using drugs and they praised him for his work that came out of using drugs. The people in the Sixties also used a lot of chanting to relax, so they can channel out their aggression and fear. I think they were doing this for the soldiers in the war because they were making peace at home when all the chaos was happening elsewhere.

I, personally thought that the video clips were good additions to learning more about the 1960’s. One of my favorites was the clips of Jimi Hendrix. I would liek to add on to our class discussion about his version of the star spangled banner. I thought his version of the national anthem to be a very interesting one. I liked it a lot. I thought that his skills on the guitar are phenomenal. I consider this work by Hendrix to be an epitome of the counter-culture of 1960s. It potrays all the aspects like defying authority, rebellion, and the use of drugs like LSD among the younger generation. I not only consider Hendrix to be a skilled musician, but i also admire his courage to become such a rebel in the 1960 American society. Besides several other similar musicians, Hendrix was one of the only African American musicians to gain fame during that era. I also think that Hendrix successfully conveyed his agression and his rebellion to the then society through his songs and musical skills.

Just wanted to say that I visited the Whitney museum by myself last weekend. After hearing what people where saying about it in class, I expected a lot more from it. I really didn’t think it was that impressive. I thought the “theater” rooms where they played music and had colorful stuff on the screen was the equivalent of me watching the screen on windows media player. Then, the room that sounded really cool in class- the one that showed what it felt like to be on LSD- wasn’t that exciting. There’s a similar light used in clubs. I thought the room with the cube was ridiculous. I had to take off my shoes to see a neon-lit cube emitting a high pitched sound… When I went there, an old guy stopped me and he told me he was one of the producers in the 60s and that his name was on several of the posters. I forgot his name, but he told me about one of the music performances that he was hosting and how it got canceled - that was somewhat interesting….talking to someone who lived in the 60s, and actually remembers =)