There are articles about the hippy-dippy 1960s that seem designed to show how the left can eat its own. In Friday’s Weekend Arts section of the New York Times, the top of the page was dominated by an art review by Holland Cotter titled "Through Rose-Colored Granny Glasses." In between his personal notes on the "weird-sweet burn" of tear gas and displaying a knowing nod toward the effects of taking the "wrong drug at the wrong time," Cotter scorned the new "Summer of Love" exhibit at the Whitney Museum as scarred by racism, sexism, and commercialism. First, he complained that the radical politics of the era was undersold, and the gay and women’s "liberation" movements:
But the net effect is less to reveal a depth and variety of creativity than to demonstrate that the main function of alternative art was advertising, that the counterculture started as a commercial venture, which soon became a new mainstream and ended up an Austin Powers joke.
Possibly this view represents the show’s critical edge, but if so, it is sharpened at the expense of accuracy. To many people who came of age between 1963 to 1972 political intensity was the defining feature of the period and its most interesting art. It never let up.
In 1965 antiwar protests started — 25,000 students marched on Washington that year — and they grew larger and more frequent. By 1967, more than 400,000 troops have been sent to Vietnam. Che Guevara was killed that year; the Black Panthers had formed the year before. In 1968 the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. Racial uprisings spread across the country. The Democratic convention brought the war home to the Chicago streets. In 1969: university takeovers, Altamont. In 1970: Jimi dead. Janis dead. Cambodia. Kent State.
You will learn almost nothing about any of this from the show. Or about the gay liberation movement. Or about the gathering women’s movement, although militant feminism makes total sense given the relentless sexism of psychedelic art, in which all women are young, nude, available "chicks," and very rarely artists.
Then came the complaint that the exhibit was way too focused on whites:
Nor would you have any inkling that, for Americans at least, pop culture during these years meant black culture. Apart from Hendrix’s presence, the show is overwhelmingly white. Aretha Franklin’s first big hits — "Respect," "Chain of Fools" and "Natural Woman" — were all 1967. You won’t find her here. Nor will you find Marvin, or Smokey, or Otis, or Fontella or Ray. Again, take one style for the whole picture, you leave most of the picture out.
Cotter was pleased that the Whitney curators seemed to understand the need for vicious anti-Americanism. a theme the left can always unite around:
Ronald L. Haeberle’s much-reproduced print of the My Lai massacre is here, with its two-phrase overlay of text: "Q: And babies? A: And babies." The outstanding addition, though, is from the Whitney’s permanent collection, a blistering 1967 painting by Peter Saul. Titled "Saigon," it’s a flame-red, half-abstract, bad-trip vision of mass sexual violation.
In short, while Cotter noted young people at the time were typically full of "clammy ego" or "stoned on self-adoration, there were also an extraordinary number of young people during the Vietnam era who engaged in sustained acts of social generosity. And they made art."
How typical of the liberal Times that military service is never included in the defintion of young people "engaged in sustained acts of social generosity."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
History Channel Haight Ashbury LSD and cspan panel
May 27, 2007 - 12:39 ET by SportPoliticsHistory channel yesterday had 3 or 4 hours of the 60's on, all in a row. I learned all about Haight Ashbury and san francisco and the movement and the drugs and the Summer Of Love - which according to the hour after hour history channel yesterday was 1967 when the whole movement was already crashing on outlawed LSD and ruining the rising class of blacks that were caught in the grinder with the middle class and rich hippies taking over the distrcit next to the poorer black areas and the influx of broken young losers from all over the usa.
I thought the whole thing was at least well done, and they jumped constantly from ex-hippy/current hippies interviewed praise to pointing out the bigger problems and failures. The big hours extravaganza ended on "Woodstock" - and showed who and how it was brought together ( or not so brought together with water and food shortages and lack of medical care ) - etc..
I was impressed that the history channel didn't have something that was so obviously slanted for once. I will however add they never showed the hatred toward troops, and kept DC politics out of it and didn't make race baiting an issue, it was more of an LSD and what did it do styled take. Timothy Leary was a big part of the production.
I also note the guy they kept having on to comment was or is Time's editor. He looked like an ex hippy or modern hippy and pretty burned out from it. lol
It bothers me nowadays that I find out all these magazine and commentary editor kings, and these type of history and what happened things, and how did it go, are liberal queen controlled.
I don't ever buy their magazines or subscribe anymore. I get pissed once, and that's it for them.
Then I was watching c-span, and they had at the NY public library, a panel " Liberals and Conservatives, Then and Now. " It was 4 or 5 panelists, and it didn't take long to see they were ALL raging leftists. One of them was some famous magazine head again, us news and world report, or newsweek, or something - one of those...
They all brought up conservatism as a Goldwater movement, it's a movement, a movement they kept saying...LOL - the last guy finally mentioned that Goldwater's book was "really written by L Brent Bozell". rofl - You can imagine my surprise - the others apparently - experts commenting on it - at NY library no less, hadn't a clue... and presented it as penned by Goldwater.
Their ivory tower liberal was Galbraith, and it was a sick, sick, endlessly incoherent left wing demolove rant. I never did find out who or what Galbraith(e?) was. I guess they assumed I had already been indoctrinated, and was already on their bandwagon.
When it was on and over I was asking myself, what did they actually tell me, what did I learn, what facts... how has my understanding improved....
Well, it was basically pure partisan bashing...they read some quotes and babbled inanities...hoped that "the movement" of conservatism was soon to be dead, declared it dead wrong, derided it, etc... I did note they PRETENDED they weren't part of any movement - and tried to present themselves and their love of the dem left wing position as "STANDARD" - and anything else (conservatism) as an "abberration that is wrong and injurious to everyone" .
They were so focused on bashing conservatism they never got any then and now thing going. They bashed. It was pathetic.
They had a Q.&A. session, and this redskinned oldish drunk spent 5 minutes excoriating conservatism with some wacky conspiracy theory - from the audience and finally formed a nothing question. Not that any of the panel could answer...anything other than being poor left wing ranters was already way too tough. I had some hope the one guy who corrected the rest on "who wrote the book" would have a chance, but no go.
It really struck me that the one guy was a major famous editor, and he had a very hard time talking and putting together his thoughts on this - and was a raging leftist totally blinded by partisanship. Maybe he was trying to cover his massive partisanship. He did a lousy job of it.
I think republicans have a very, very long way to go to get their say out in the public sphere. My impression is the left dominates it almost everywhere.
That [History Channel] '60s Show
May 27, 2007 - 13:16 ET by j17ghsSorry you had to sit through that to write your report. Enjoyed reading it. Your last comment on how Republicans have such a long way to go is sadly true. I keep expecting the Democrats' lopsided media coverage to reach a saturation point but where are Bush administration officials when it comes to disspelling the lies that Democrats tell about so many things?
And it's almost ludicrious that when the Democrats got control of Congress they immediately talk about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine?! It should be called the Fascist Doctrine. OK, so let's start then by putting Newt Gingrich on Meet The Press every Sunday as co-host with Tim Rustbucket, but, as Democrats would do, let's make up for historical injustices and give Newt 45 minutes. Then we can start on the major networks, magazines, university broadcasts, etc.
But Republicans, even when in power, seem to ignore the advice about carpe diem. Instead, they make nice and try to convince an elitist media and the average Democrat how wonderful Republicans really are. Of course, this has been a real losing strategy; yet Republicans continue this course even at state and local levels. With friends like the current batch of Bush Republicans, I sometimes wonder who needs political enemies?
Oh! But it is getting out (a
May 27, 2007 - 13:44 ET by tracheostomyOh! But it is getting out (at least in an antagonistic sort of way) because. . .
- the last guy finally mentioned that Goldwater's book was "really written by L Brent Bozell". rofl - You can imagine my surprise - the others apparently - experts commenting on it - at NY library no less, hadn't a clue... and presented it as penned by Goldwater.
That was pure gold; loved that section! Hear that Brent? You're getting under their collective skins!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Critic Critiquing
May 27, 2007 - 13:40 ET by acumenYou will learn almost nothing about any of this from the show.
Guess what Mr Cotter, there isn't much to learn from that era other than how to throw one hell of a long party. That's pretty much all there was (as one who survived that era). Sure there were those that capitalized on the "scene". But they were the minority and few took them seriously. Of course it was advantageous to talk the talk but for most that was just a means to (how to politely put it?) "hook-up", not based on any strong ideological convictions that dominated most daily way of life. Ooops, was that sexist?
As far as the racism issue raised by Mr. Cotter. Er, Hendrix was probably included because he was part of the psychedelic music scene that was becoming more popular than soul music on American's radios. You remember soul music Mr Cotter, with such artists as Aretha, Marvin, or Smokey, or Otis, or Fontella or Ray. But perhaps you would approve of Black Sabbath trivia at an R&B exhibit.
Ahhh, and who can forget those radical kooks of the sixties such as Che, Angela Davis, Huey Newton, Charles Manson, Eldridge Cleaver, Bobby Seale, Jane Fonda and John (post vietnam) Kerry, etc, etc. Just more self-interested tricksters who were at the time correctly perceived by most as just what they were....dangerous. Sure those folks could whip up a good demonstration and the occasional riot, but for the most part the sixties were simply about having fun. What started as an exploration of conciousness, with utopian pipe-dreams of "peace now" came crashing to an inevitable conclusion by raised fists.
It would seem Mr Cotter still hasn't gotten it. I would suggest Mr Cotter put on the Beatles - Revolution, listen very carefully to the lyrics and chill like most of the folks from that era did long ago. Oh, and speaking of commercialism, how's that coporate job at the NY Times working out for you Mr. Cotter?
"We even had some leftist politicos from Berkeley ranting, the only bring-down of the day." Phil Lesh, Grateful Dead - Searching for the Sound
Does the left eat it's own...
May 27, 2007 - 23:55 ET by bigtimerDoes the left eat it's own.....
Surely you jest....
Here is another perfect place to put this example....