The 1960s overflowed with social injustices, civil rights, and the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement and the Vietnam War took center stage. Activists exercised democracy in action, demonstrating their rights under the First Amendment. These protests were breeding grounds that forged a path to songs by musicians with a social conscience. Protest songs of the 60s were instrumental in shaping domestic policy. "Times They are a Changin", by Bob Dylan became a theme song of the civil rights movement. "Eve of Destruction" by Barry McGuire influenced legislators to reduce the voting age to 18 with the line, "You're old enough to kill, but not for votin". Jimi Hendrix's solo, spell binding guitar rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock was symbolized to be the most influential protest song of the 60s. What other songs contributed to change in America by utilizing American values?
I would recommend looking into Peter, Paul and Mary, Pete Seeger and others who collaborated with them for more on this topic. – LisaM8 years ago
It doesn't get any more accurate or pointed than Dylan's "Masters of War," or "Only a Pawn in Their Game." Dylan just added another trophy - the Nobel - to his shelf, by the way. Not bad for a guy who couldn't get a band in high school. – Tigey8 years ago
This topic would make a great regular column. There's so much ground to cover. Practically limitless, really. – albee8 years ago
Absolutely! I felt this way, but had to put the brakes on. – Lorraine8 years ago
To quote the seagulls from "Finding Nemo, "Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine." This should be fun. – Tigey8 years ago
This would be interesting to hear more about. Many American think of Creedence when it comes to Vietnam "era" music. I would like to know about other pieces that impacted the movement and vice-versa. – dekichan8 years ago
This topic is a very good topic, it could even make a great column. – jhennerss8 years ago
Very interesting topic. You might need to define pop music a little more specifically. Look into Tom Lehrer, a musician famous for his satirical songs about the Cold War. My favorite is a song about Wernher von Braun. – Jennifer Waldkirch7 years ago
I think this topic needs to be examined more critically. For instance, singing about social justice in and of itself does not make the world more just. Holding individuals and institutions accountable in legal terms is what can further the cause of social justice. In fact, baby boomers of this generation have been criticized for leaving the world in the greatest states of inequality since the French Revolution. Both the links below extrapolate on the topic of baby boomers and social justice. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/generation-y-pay-price-baby-boomer-pensions http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/john-izzo/baby-boomer-legacy_b_2665590.html It would actually be fair to argue the opposite of the topic which is that the music did not further any social justice cause at all. Social justice is more than singing "Do They Know It's Christmas?" Given that in some countries the majority of people do not celebrate Christmas, there could actually be a topic written on how some "social justice" songs actually reveal an "us and them" ethnocentric attitude by the West. Perhaps the topic could be described in the opposite sense of how music reflected the times rather than the other way around. John Lennon received an enormous amount of criticism for many actions and ideas which are acceptable as normal behaviour today. Also keep in mind that many people who fought the social justice fight gave up their lives and experienced incarceration. It was the people of the time, not necessarily the music, who created change in the world. Were musicians just taking the cues from people who sacrificed much to achieve freedoms we all enjoy in the world today? Did the times influence the music or the other way around? I would be open to hearing any responses on this topic. – Munjeera7 years ago
Reports on successful steps taken to influence political leaders would be both interesting and useful. – Delan7 years ago
The arts and music are the first programs cut from US public school curricula amidst current vitriolic cultural and policy debates. With STEM focus, charter secondary schools often do not include arts and music. (I'm concerned schools would cut literature, too, if savvy teachers were not able to link it to literacy.) Anecdotal and alarmist rhetoric argues that the result is an apathetic, tech-centered generation, devoid of creativity. With art and music leaving formal schooling, the response seems to be that art and music will be produced out of a well of intrinsic passion and sustained through the same. Museums of all sort in the US are struggling with dropping attendance. The arts and letters in higher education are widely derided as worthless and are also facing cuts and dropping enrollments. What is the role of K-12 education, then, if anything, in exposing young people to, nurturing, and developing aesthetic sensibilities and skills? If we as a culture and society abandon K-12 arts and music education, as we are, what effects can we attribute to that decision (e.g., declining museum patronage)?
Utilitarianism at its worst. Why can't we have both??? – Munjeera7 years ago
This is a really awesome and relevant topic. As someone in music therapy, I see how dangerous cutting back on the arts can be. Art and music is in our human nature. Music is one of the most complex things our brain engages in. It develops the mind faster and encourages discipline. Out of all the disciplines I have studies, music has not only given me a new skill, but has helped me become disciplined and dedicated. I think when music is taught poorly in schools it is just as bad as cutting it. – birdienumnum177 years ago
Comprised of a combination of art students, artists, and educators, the docents at Los Angeles' Broad museum do not just give visitors the answers to questions. Answering questions by asking questions invites guests to come up with their own ideas about the art they are viewing. This is a refreshing experience that challenges viewers to interact with the art at a higher level of investment thus providing a more personalized experience. By increasing viewers' understanding of art through more direct engagement, the Broad is creating a more artistically educated society one guest at a time.
Interesting form of public service. When I patronized a certain place and ask a question about it, being given an answer certainly lasts only as long as the next piece. By doling out questions, it seems to me that the experience permeates the mind longer. – lofreire7 years ago
There is a fair amount of scholarly research published on interactions between museum guides and viewers, particularly in terms of learning engagement on the part of viewers. (See for example, E. Louis Lankford, “Aesthetic Experience in Constructivist Museums,” The Journal of Aesthetic Education (Vol. 36, No. 2, Summer 2002) 146.) I wonder if this sort of approach is addressed in the literature, and if so, did they implement these policies based on the literature? – PMGH7 years ago
Analyse the extent to which art institutions remain male dominated. Some institutions actively aim to promote and encourage female artists, but others, particularly state and national galleries consistently show blockbuster male artists. This can be seen as discouraging for women and girls aspiring to work in any kind of art field, but can also just be a reflection of the underrepresentation of women in the art industry.
Many of the blockbusters (although not all) feature artists from the past when female artists were written out of art history. However, many of the other exhibitions at these institutions now focus on major contemporary female artists and many art historians are actively seeking to re-write the histories and include female artists in the story of art. The history of printmaking is particularly dominated by female artists. – AnitaPisch7 years ago
I am not really sure that this is indeed an issue this day and age. I would have to say that in my explorations of art worlds ranging from the alternative contemporary art scene in Athens, to the big institutions of America and Australia; all had a pretty even spread of exhibitions by both male and female artists. Particularly in contemporary art. I think if we look back historically there may be trend of male dominance in the institutions, but I think that is now a relic of the past. Any instances of gender bias I feel are isolated cases, and go both ways. – SoCrates7 years ago
As an emerging dance artist, I can't say that I feel women are discouraged but it is interesting to note some inequalities... I feel that women are over-represented in the industry, resulting in more competition between us. Whereas there aren't as many men who train to become dancers but there are very similar opportunities for them. Although ballet themes have moved away from portraying women as delicate, in my ballet training at times I felt as if I am still treated as such - being told that girls don't do particular steps and repertoire so not to bother learning the technique or practicing it, even though some of my strengths lie in stereotypically male areas like turns and grand allegro. It's also interesting to consider the dominance of male choreographers in ballet, which may typically be considered a female-dominant industry. I suppose you weren't really referring to dance when talking about women being discouraged but thought it might be an interesting consideration of how the dance industry exhibits both sides of the argument. – georgiapierce7 years ago
Traditional art is based upon faultless technique, well-defined subject matter and definitive notions of beauty, while modern art is based upon personal expression, vision, originality and innovation. Analyse the idea that traditional art is more focused on portraying a theme or suggestion that is attractive or realistic to the eye, while modern art is more intent on conveying a theme or idea that is relevant to everyday life.
Based on this response, do individuals who prefer modern art over traditional appreciate artwork on a deeper and more meaningful level?
I hope this clarifies the topic a little better. – Ness7 years ago
This is a good topic. I think the argument could go either way, based on opinion and experience. I think personal upbringing and culture may play role as well. You might want to add that in. – birdienumnum177 years ago
Great topic. It is important to remember the different priorities in traditional art practises. In renaissance and neo classicism, artists were trained technically, with a priority of replicating reality. This obviously does not take much understanding to comprehend. Having said this, perhaps it is a reason why artistically minded people are more interested in contemporary art that holds more hidden meaning? There is so much room for debate in this topic! – emhand7 years ago
An intriguing topic. I think that people who are not artistically minded appreciate traditional art over modern art because their talent is undeniable, as seen with their perfect execution of technique and beauty (as you have aforementioned). However artist, art theorists and other artistically minded people may appreciate modern art because of the idea's they are trying to convey.
I think the idea of the "individual" needs to be redefined as either "do you think that the general public prefer modern art over traditional", or "do you think that contemporary artists / theories prefer modern art over traditional". The individual is a debatable perspective to write under. – Jessica Carmody7 years ago
It cannot be claimed that those who like modern art are on deeper and more meaningful level because every person has his individual point of view and preferences. Sure, if to be subjective, we can say that these or those people think wrong. But as for me, it is not an appropriate way to resolve this question. – MaryLand9997 years ago
I can imagine an article focusing solely on the question that is implicit in the second sentence--is modern art more intent on conveying ideas that are relevant to everyday life (or not)? The question posed in the last sentence, however, betrays a bias: it should not ask whether individuals who prefer modern art over traditional appreciate it more deeply, but whether individuals who prefer art that is relevant (which might include much traditional art) appreciate it more deeply and meaningfully. Also, please define "modern art" for this topic--do you mean art associated with Modernism, or do you mean modern in very broad sense, including postmodern and contemporary art? – Drake Gomez5 years ago
How far can social taboos be pushed? Analyzing the affair, bestiality, and pedophilia. Furthering with Aristotle's six elements of theatre and the three unities.
Podcasts are becoming more and more popular, and many are hosted by comedians, even though their show's topics range from murder to history. Is this candid, improvised, and comedic take on these more serious topics changing the way that we discuss them or even deal with them in our daily lives?
Is this focused solely on podcasts by comedians? Might be helpful to draw a contrast between the followers of a podcast like OnBeing vs those who follow a podcast from a comedian, and how we get different consumers to relate to the same news (like CNN vs The Daily Show) by packaging and presenting it differently (like traditional news vs comedy). – Nate Océan8 years ago
I think drawing a contrast like that would be really interesting, both types of show generate conversation, but I think they change perception and how we interact with the facts presented. That seems like a great take on this – boldlygone8 years ago
What are the most relevant examples of free speech that has been expressed through creative mediums. Have they perfectly expressed their point or even crossed the line?
Could you be more specific in what you mean by relevant examples? Relevant to what? – LaRose9 years ago
This sounds like it would be a timely topic. I would be interested in pursuing it especially with a view to looking at how comedians have brought about social change and have used political satire to respond to various views expressed by presidential candidates. Donald Trump has certainly challenged and some would say crossed the line in some of his comments. Is this what you had in mind? Also news reporting has become very politically correct in Canada. I regularly watch CNN and am impressed with the well-researched questions asked by various hosts. I have heard Alex Wagner a few time as well as others. In Canada we don't have anyone asking the touch questions and as a result the information conveyed is done in a very shallow and superficial way. At least in America, the topics relating race form a national dialogue. If you could clarify what take you wanted on this topic such as sticking with politics, comedy shows or news reporting, I would be interested in nabbing this topics. Thanks! – Munjeera9 years ago
I think this is an interesting topic, but definitely needs to be narrowed to a more specific instance, as above, otherwise, it could just descend into soapboxing about when free speech is justified. So, this could focus on free speech in comedy (e.g. Louis C.K's Saturday Night Live appearance). I think whoever writes this up needs to qualify what is meant by creative mediums, especially when discussing something like politics, something which is usually confined to the news side of media. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
Very interesting, you could add YouTube for this as well, since it is a creative medium to an extent and you get videos of just about anything. As long as it doesn't violate copyright, it stays up. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Define "free speech," and specify "creative mediums." What qualifies as "relevant"? Relevant how? – T. Palomino2 years ago
