Artistic Expression & Pop Culture During the Vietnam War

We consider the 1960s as a time where people were united against a great evil.  Depending on who you spoke to, that evil was either communists or the government.  The fifteen years from 1960 to 1975 were highlighted by what was publicly called a pointless war and great social change in the United States.  Art was used as an outlet for people to express themselves as the world was changing rapidly around them.  Regardless of what the art was about, one thing alone influenced it: the Vietnam War.

Of the various forms of artistic elements that grew out of the anti-war movement in the 1960s, large sub-denominations each found their own unique way of expressing dissent.  A medium that appeared as simple as photography could have its own agenda, presented by the way figures were dressed or the scenery which the photo captured.  Music and art even go hand in hand at certain turns, with album art being used to further the message associated with the music on the record itself.

The unsung legends in the music industry were those who composed the art that became the visual representation of the music.  After all, this is what greeted the fans and customers when they visited their local record shops, or read about the album in a newspaper or magazine.  The album cover is a visual statement about the music, and an extension of the message that the composer was trying to convey.  But likewise, the music in that album could also be an extension of the message that artist was trying to convey.

A wide range of artists produced the cover art for the music.  Cover art itself was as varied as the music it supposedly represented.  These ranged from a straight photograph of the artist – like Louie Armstrong’s Wonderful World - to psychedelic covers – like albums from the Grateful Dead.  The art presented on the cover almost always reflected either the mindset of the singer or band, or the music on the album.

Besides the psychedelic covers, The Grateful Dead also featured artwork that was considered controversial and was removed from record stores.  While their album covers did not evolve much over time in style, the blatant use of album art for political endorsement was toned down after their initial debut in the 1960s.  The artist who was commissioned to create the art for many of these initial albums was Stanley Mouse.

Their debut and self-titled album shows the most flamboyant political reference in the Grateful Dead’s discography from the perspective of album art.  Aside from assorted conspiracy theories[2] about the writing at the top of the album, the most pronounced feature is the large fireball in the background of the image.  According to members of the band, the distorted writing reads, “In the land of the dark, the ship of the sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.”[3]

The remainder of the cover featured members of the band pictured twice, two of which are seen on the back of a stone sculpture.  While the statement may not be blatantly against war, one could easily argue it as a metaphor for the results of war.  The apocalyptic depiction on the cover, accompanied by what appears to be a blackened Sun, and the fireball with the monster sculpture could all be seen as a jab at the Vietnam War, or perhaps the future if the war continued.

While Mouse was known for his psychedelic or cryptic art, Robert Whitaker utilized photography in the album art he created.  Whitaker was interested in the psychological impact of art, and his work was criticized for being particularly graphic.  Whitaker made political statements regarding the Vietnam War in much of his photographic album art.  Still, Whitaker was not blind to the fact that other countries and nations – such as the Soviet Union – were committing acts potentially as deplorable as the United States.

On March 25, 1966, Whitaker held a controversial photoshoot with the Beatles at Chelsea Studios.[4]  During this session, a series of photos were taken that depicted the band in white butchers’ coats.  Band members were shown handling and propping up decapitated infant dolls, with paint resembling blood splattered on the coats and the dolls.[5]  Whitaker titled this series of images A Somnambulant Adventure, and one of the images would be selected as the album cover for the Beatles’ Yesterday and Today.

John Lennon described the shoot as “just another Beatles thing”, indicating that one of the interpretations of the images was that the label was butchering their records.  This seems to be the most publicized explanation of the cover art.  However, the band members’ anti-war attitude is also well-known.  In 1972, Lennon bluntly proclaimed during a concert for people to “come together [and] stop the war”, a play on words from the band’s hit Come Together.[7]  Lennon also stated that the cover was “as relevant as Vietnam”, making his own connection between the artwork and the Beatles proclaimed anti-war stance.

Whitaker also went on record to express his profound frustration with the new quasi-Manifest Destiny attitude the United States had adopted towards the world since the 1950s.  Many record stores censored the album art with brown paper sleeves, or they pulled them from the shelves altogether.  Reprints of the album no longer featured the image of the Beatles in butchers’ clothes, but instead showed the group huddled around a traveler’s chest.[9]  The statement of chaos put forth by Whitaker and the Beatles had been removed almost entirely from retail stores across the nation.  Capitol Records issued a public apology for the album cover, and went so far as to say that it was “a serious lapse in taste.”

Whitaker was not the only artist to work with the Beatles to make political or controversial statements within album art.  Peter Blake was another one of these artists, as the creator of the cover art for Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.  Blake was known widely as a pop artist most notable for his unique collage work. His most popular piece – entitled On the Balcony combined pop culture with fine art.  In this piece, he included Manet’s Balcony in addition to other works of contemporary art.  Blake himself recreated each piece of art work that he used in On the Balcony.  The artwork he created for the Beatles included these elements, as well as sculpture.

While the cover art for Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was not explicitly part of the anti-war movement, many inferences can be made by examining the cover.  The staple of the piece was the sheer number of figures that appeared in the work including Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allan Poe, and Karl Marx.  Photographic cut outs were placed amongst other images of famous celebrities, athletes, philosophers, and wax sculptures.  What’s more, the Beatles are featured twice in the photograph, both as themselves and as wax sculptures.

In the foreground is a bed of flowers of various colors, with the word “Beatles” spelled out in red blooms.  Directly behind this bed of flowers stands a kick drum featuring the name of the album.  The cover art has been described by both members of the band and their biographer as a salute to the hippie generation and to pop culture of the 1960s.[12]  This would certainly seem to ring true, with the bright colors, moustaches, and the abundance of flowers.  However, it may also be a nod to political endorsements of members of the group, such as John Lennon, who had made several requests for other somewhat controversial figures to be added (although those requests were ultimately denied).[13]  The inclusion of Karl Marx - one of the inspirations for the Bolshevik Revolution, and ultimately communism - during a time when the containment of communism was a key staple in the United States’ foreign policy, may have been another manifestation of protest against the war.

1966 saw an intensification of the Vietnam War by President Johnson bolstering the number of soldiers on the ground, and the United States government was insisting more than ever that the war was crucial in its policing of world affairs.  Eugene Rostow who was serving as the U.S. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1967 made a statement in response to those opposing government decisions and policy.  The statement was geared towards virtually every anti-war, anti-government, and anti-capitalist group and entity.

“For many who disagree with the government about Viet-Nam, the real question is whether the United State should abandon its whole postwar foreign policy [that] four Presidents of both parties […] have believed vital to our national security.  [This issue is] posed often and well by high minded and sincere critics.”[14]

While he was not explicitly addressing artists or musicians, Rostow put forth that the United States was striving for its own protection through military action, but was not interested in oppressing opposing ideologies outside of the containment of communism.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara began to take notice of the anti-war dissent as well.  He put forth ideas to reduce U.S. involvement in the war after noting that “there will be both increasing pressure for widening the war and continued loss of support for American participation in the struggle.”[15]  McNamara also stated that “there will be increasing calls for withdrawal.”[16]  He emphasized that the war should be ended swiftly, and urged military officers and advisors that anti-war dissent would eventually lead to the government’s undoing.  However, despite McNamara’s attempts to do so, he was ultimately denied by officials in the Johnson administration.  Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Abe Fortas particularly took issue with McNamara’s analysis of the war, stating that his assessment was:

“…almost entirely [based] upon the U.S. public opinion and an unspoken assumption as to the effect that should be given to it.  I am in total disagreement [and] can think of nothing worse than the suggested program.”[17]

Ultimately, McNamara’s recommendation would fall on deaf ears, and instead the war would continue.  While McNamara did not officially align himself with the artists and people protesting Vietnam, he indicated certain failures and regrets of Vietnam later in his life, particularly noting the poor relations between the people and the government.[18]

Rostow’s address was geared towards explaining the reasons the government was involved with activist affairs, addressing an assortment of topics posed by the New Left.  He particularly highlighted the crux of anti-war protesters’ concerns with government and military actions during the war:

“…[they] proceed to [this] startling conclusion that the main contribution the United States should make to the stability of the world environment is the service of her own domestic example.”[19]

Rostow’s statement had little impact and did little to quell the protest of the Vietnam War, nor did it stop censorship of those within the anti-war movement.  Robert Whitaker’s work had been censored in 1966, and while Peter Blake was not censored, he self-censored by opting to avoid controversial suggestions made by the Beatles.  However, despite Blake’s caution, he still included imagery that could be argued as progressive, alternative, or contradictory to the morals of the United States in the 1960s.

The tone of Rostow’s speech was arguably lax, but it did not change the attitude that anti-war protestors were a threat to capitalist society.  Most government resources used to combat the anti-war movement was invested explicitly in combating communism, not the flower-powered hippie revolution.[20]  This is why John Lennon was on so many government watch lists.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation went great lengths to silence or at the very least, tone down Lennon.  This was in response to his activities in anti-war, pro-Communist philosophies that he pushed as a public figure and within the art he endorsed.

Lennon was a figure that fascinated the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover.  They used a variety of approaches with Lennon, including spying, wiretapping, and photographing the famous Beatle.  Lennon recalled,

“I’d open the door, there’d be guys standing on the other side of the street […] I’d get in the car and they’d be following me in a car.  Not hiding.  They wanted me to see I was being followed.”[22]

The FBI also set up “dirty tricks” to arrest and detain Lennon,[23] including an alleged drug bust.[24]  At one point, the United States government even successfully deported Lennon and Yoko Ono, stating that they were among a group of individuals plotting to overthrow President Nixon.

In addition to creating album art, some politically motivated artists also traveled to the soils of Vietnam itself.  Robert Whitaker used imagery from the battlegrounds to propel his message to the people.  Each of Whitaker’s Vietnam photos depicted a similar theme: a desolate landscape, and a single military vehicle.  There may be other artifacts in the image that imply different messages, but even in what seemed like more light-hearted imagery, he conveyed a sense of hopelessness.  For example, his photograph called Pepsi shows a capitalist encroachment clashing with a muddied landscape.  This meeting of both the capitalist west and the communist east is a metaphor for the war.

Photojournalist Larry Burrows created images even more notorious.  He captured not only the horrific images of wounded soldiers in Vietnam, but also nefarious acts of war being carried out by American armed forces.[26]  Where Whitaker made statements by the lack of individuals in his imagery, Burrows’ photography was focused exclusively on the soldiers and civilians in Vietnam.

While Whitaker’s photography of Vietnam was not widely published, Burrows’ work was almost a staple of Time LIFE Magazine in the 1960s and early 1970s.  Burrows was also in a better position to capture the true horrors of the war, as he was usually active on the front line.  Burrows’ imagery captured the pure carnage from scenes of injured soldiers and deplorable living conditions, to war-torn citizens and a fractured country.  Despite the horrors of the war, Burrows did manage to find a few shining moments of humanity, perhaps to bring some sense of light in a land so dark.

Perhaps one of the most harrowing anti-war images however, was inspired by an interview conducted by CBS journalist Mike Wallace with Private First Class (PFC) Paul Meadlo.  The interview focused on a massacre at “Songmy”[27] and the photograph by Ronald Haeberle focused on the horrific events that transpired there.  The interview was aired on CBS on November 20, 1969 on 60 Minutes.  In this interview, Wallace asked Meadlo how many people he had killed, to which Meadlo responded that “you can’t tell how many you killed” due to the use of machine guns.  After confirming that Meadlo gunned down men, women, and children, Wallace asked him, “And babies?”  Meadlo then responded, “and babies.”  Meadlo was asked to clarify this twice in the interview, and both times the response was the same.

The anger and dissent generated by the massacre at My Lai fueled a new wave of anti-war protests, particularly from those in the artistic community.  The Art Workers Coalition (AWC) began to rally for an anti-war poster that was as outrageous as the massacre.  During a meeting with the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, Irving Petlin – a member of the AWC declared:

“...the museum should issue vast distribution of a poster so violently outraged at [this massacre] that it will place absolutely in print and in public that this Museum [and its patrons] is outraged by the massacre at Songmy.”[29]

The AWC opted to combine the interview with Haeberle’s photography, creating an iconic artistic protest.  The image And Babies featured the chilling question and answer between Meadlo and Wallace and depicted a pile of corpses taken immediately after the My Lai massacre in 1968.[30]  Several of the corpses are indeed infants, along with women and children.  All of the casualties depicted are either naked, or in civilian clothing, lending evidence that the attack was indiscriminate.  The poster’s depiction of dead civilians posed the idea that the warfare in Vietnam spiraled out of control, contradicting statements put forth by the U.S. Government,[31] and violating the promises of the United States’ own foreign policy.

The AWC had requested financial aid from the MoMA, but their request was ultimately denied, presumably due to political pressure.[33]  There was concern among the board members in the museum over the appearance of endorsing such a potentially controversial piece.  This did not stop the AWC from printing and distributing the poster, however.  To accomplish the goals that Petlin had described, the AWC commissioned the assistance of what were likely union presses.  Because of the MoMA’s reaction to the poster and disassociation with the AWC, the museum quickly became the focal point for anti-war protests.[34]

The My Lai Massacre led to an escalation in the war and anti-war protests.  By the time it occurred, anti-war marches and protests had been ongoing for over a decade.  McNamara was identified by The Washington Star as having an “undoubtable minority view in the Pentagon” and was an “advocate of free speech.”[35]  Despite his unpopular views, McNamara continued to serve through Johnson’s administration, and frequently opposed wartime escalation.[36]  But as far as the public could see, the government was united behind the war, and the citizens were united against it.

The bloodbath that was the year 1968, coupled with the election between Humphrey and Nixon also increased domestic tension.  It was during this time leading into the summer of 1969 that an idea for the world’s largest art and music festival was developed.  Woodstock would be the festival that highlighted all of the ideas shared by the New Left, and it reached artists across all media.  From photography, to canvas, to music and songwriting, Woodstock would showcase all of it.  Stanley Goldstein, a coordinator for the music festival, perfectly summed up the affairs of the world during the planning of the event:

“We were in the middle of a war in Vietnam.  We were in the middle of a civil rights revolution.  There was a vast awakening of some kind of political action, I think inspired by the civil rights movements.”

Even though the official name of the festival was the Woodstock World and Art Fair, the representation of artists at the fair is often overlooked.  Despite this, promotional artwork from the art festival was no different from posters for concerts during the 1960s and 1970s, such as those by Wes Wilson.  Some posters, however, seemed designed to represent the hippie generation’s relationship with the world.  All of the posters used imagery to give the viewer a perception of peace or unity.  One poster in particular featured what could be described as a Venus-like figure surrounded by two Cupids, indicating love and peace.[38]  All of the posters boasted the same theme of “an Aquarian exposition”, correlating to the zodiac.  The disassociation with war and politics was a staple of Woodstock, as described by one of Woodstock’s co-producers, Joel Rosenman:

“We were trying to make [Woodstock] be nonviolent and artistic.  We certainly didn’t want political statements […] although we knew there was going to be some politics no matter what.”

Just as Rosenman suggested, however, the elephant at the festival was the Vietnam War.  With the influence the war had on the artistic circles, it stood to reason that even art that wasn’t explicitly about politics could be reimagined as political.  The art at Woodstock (including the promotional posters) ran counter to the photographs and anti-war posters being released at the time (such as And Babies).  Where art in the general public’s eye generally depicted disaster or tragedy, the art at Woodstock sought to focus on peace and unity.

With the focus on the idea of unity, there was an attempt to refocus on other current affairs at Woodstock, particularly the Civil Rights Movement.  This would not only be the focus of Woodstock, but of other artists such as the AWC.[41]  In a sense, this could be seen as a statement not just to the United States, but to the rest of the world involved in conflict.  The movement had transformed into one against oppression, albeit a more peaceful solution than the foreign policy of the United States.

Even though Woodstock focused on peace and unity, this certainly did not expedite an end to the war.  Several years of conflict remained before the end of what was seen as a senseless war.[42]  However, by the time the news of My Lai arrived in the United States, anti-war sentiment had reached a new high.  This made it even more difficult for the newly elected Nixon administration to continue wartime efforts given an increase in defectors and draft dodgers.[43]

By the time Nixon took office, soldiers and veterans of the war itself were easily found for interviews and protest.  Nixon had promised a swift end to the war and expedited stabilization of southeast Asia, but instead the war escalated.[44]  Many veterans spoke out against the war, having been a product and cog in the machine.  Some publicly stated that they “should have fled to Canada.”[45]  With this, the anti-war movement picked up even more steam, including the art and music associated with it.  Where music took on a form more descriptive of peace and harmony, art began to take on a more photographic approach to protesting of the war.

As the war inevitably ended, artists from the newly defined New Left continued on the same path as during the war.  In spring of 1975, Carl Andre of the AWC posted an advertisement congratulating the people of Vietnam.[46]  The advert was a single page in Art-Rite magazine.  Some identified the advertisement as a congratulatory message to the Viet Cong for successfully overthrowing the South Vietnamese and driving the United States out.[47]  This is despite the fact that the minimalistic piece of plain typeface and background did not specify anything of the sort.

There didn’t seem to be anything spectacular about the piece; that is, it was a minimalist representation of protest[48] against a war that had since ended.  Nonetheless, this did not minimize its impact, as the topic of Vietnam was still fresh in the minds of the audience.  It invoked the basic principles And Babies demonstrated earlier in 1969, when it caused a new light to be shed on the simple language of the Vietnam War.[49]  As Andre demonstrated in his image, a simple gesture of congratulations could spark the same kind of heated response as an interview with a soldier after a bloodbath.

Besides the minimalist pieces by the AWC, artists also focused on psychedelic masterpieces.  Artists such as Stanley Mouse were prominent in the late to post-Vietnam War era.  His art seemed disenchanted with contemporary affairs, and while it was far from art for art’s sake, the imagery shifted focus away from a chaotic world.  This of course, paired with psychedelic drugs enhanced the bright and vivid imagery of the art, perhaps allowing a totally different scene to be perceived by the viewer.

Even though anti-war art and propaganda did not cease in the early 1970s, the subject had begun to seem tiresome.  This is evident as a larger shift to art depicting unity rather than disharmony became more apparent.  It was also during this time that most photography was sent home from Vietnam either by journalists in the field or soldiers.  It was becoming more difficult to keep what was happening in Vietnam under wraps at home.

Photojournalists such as Larry Burrows had been supplying magazines and newspapers at home with wartime photographs since the early 1960s, but with an increase in pressure on the government to end the war, such ventures would be reduced considerably.  Burrows would not continue his efforts for long, however.  Burrows’ death may have been a haunting example of the dangers that photographers faced to capture real events happening in Vietnam.  After a helicopter carrying Burrows was shot down in Laos, a fellow journalist and editor Ralph Graves wrote: “He spent nine years covering the Vietnam War under conditions of incredible danger, not just at odd times but over and over again.”

The main focus had shifted in 1975 to the evacuation of Saigon and the end of the war, particularly the desperation of the people the lens captured.  After the incident in My Lai, images of Saigon seemed to generate the greatest impact for a number of reasons.  It was the end of the Vietnam War, and the total evacuation of United States troops, but it was also a defeat.  Where many soldiers were seen tirelessly working to evacuate citizens of Saigon away from the approaching Viet-Cong Army,[51] a new sense of horror and disharmony existed that perhaps may have been overlooked in the anti-war art movement at home.

Suddenly, the photojournalistic focus of the war shifted from a pointless and bloody war, to a ruthless enemy and fleeing citizens.  The images of soldiers in combat with bloodied bodies of villagers were replaced with images of soldiers carrying citizens onto boats, helicopters, and planes.  It began to seem as though the United States had become the ally rather than the invading force.  One of the most famous of these images shows a CIA officer on a rooftop filled with fleeing Vietnamese, attempting to get as many people on board a helicopter as possible.

With this change in atmosphere in Vietnam, a change also came to the focus of photography.  News journalism and world view had shifted to the events unfolding in China and Russia; and with it photography.  Vietnam seemed to be forgotten as soon as those last images of Saigon trickled out from the front lines.  Art did not tend to follow as closely with nations in the throes of chaos, however, like it did with Vietnam.  Photography and film would continue to be a staple in photojournalism as aids to breaking news stories.

Album covers also began to lose their association with political statements by the artists, and in some cases lost touch with the music altogether.  For example, Stanley Mouse continued to create album art for the Grateful Dead, but exclusively continued to do so using psychedelic art.  The music that was found during the Vietnam War era that protested current affairs was gone.  While music continued to have some depth, we did not see it in the same relevance as it once was.

Just like with music, our disconnection of the era that these pictures and paintings were made prevents us from truly understanding their message.  Even though we have access to interviews and documentaries, we are outsides looking in on an era that is no longer in the now.  We easily can look on some of these photographs as a piece of history in color, but we are quick to forget the true meaning and emotion behind these moments in time.  Just as photography itself needs focus of a subject, we too need to focus on subjects close to the heart of the art.

[1] This is in reference to the 1967 album, prior to the bands adoption of Mouse’s later works. Mouse, Stanley. The Grateful Dead. 1967. Album Art.

[2] Including that the writing was a form of Sumerian text, prophetic text foretelling the end of the world, or scripture from the Book of the Dead.

[3] References to these “supposed” theories, as well as the original quotation posed by Mouse can be found in McNally, Dennis. A Long Strange Trip: The Inside History of the Grateful Dead. 2013.

[4] Whitaker published a book of Beatles photography, including the “butcher scene” images as outlined on his website. Whitaker, Robert. 2016. “Bio - Robert Whitaker Photography.”  http://www.robertwhitakerphotography.com/robert-whitaker-biography/.

[5] There was an entire series of these images, all of which were at some point or another banned from public view.  The particular image being referenced is Whitaker, Robert. A Somnambulant Adventure. 1966. Album Art.

[6] The aforementioned image was selected by the Beatles as album art on Beatles. Yesterday And Today. Capitol Records T 2553. 1966. Misprint.

[7] Wiener, Jon.  Come Together: John Lennon in His Time. University of Illinois Press. 1991. pp249-250.

[8] Wiener, 1991. P17.

[9] The album art used on the reprints put out in the same year, and subsequent reprints thereafter. Beatles. Yesterday And Today. Capitol Records ST 2553. 1966.

[10] Wiener, 1991. p17.

[11] There were at least two versions drafted, but only the final was used as album art.  The full image can be seen in Blake, Peter. Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. 1967. Album Art.

[12] Wiener, 1991. pp36-37.

[13] Wiener, 1991. pp37-39.

[14] Full message issued by Rostow can be found in Department of State Publication 8322, East Asian and Pacific Series. November 1967. pp1-5.

[15]  McNamara, Robert S. In Retrospect. Vintage Books. 1995. p308.

[16] McNamara, 1995. p308.

[17] McNamara, 1995. p310.

[18] McNamara, 1995. pp321-324.

[19] Department of State Publication 8322. 1967. pp2-3.

[20] Communism busts by police and government officials had begun as early as the 1940s and lasted well into the 1960s.  Joseph McCarthy was the one who waived the flag against that profiling.  More information on this can be found in Schrecker, Ellen. The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents. Second Edition. Bedford Series of History and Culture. 2002.

[21] Wiener, 1991. pp261-262.

[22] Lennon reporting activities of the FBI in court.  Found in Wiener, 1991. p229.

[23] Wiener, 1991. pp229-230.

[24] Wiener, 1991. p231.

[25] Wiener, 1991. pp225-231.

[26] A complete collection of Burrows’ photography in Vietnam, including his works for Time Life Magazine can be found in Burrows, Larry; Halberstam, David. Vietnam. 2002.

[27] Actually My Lai.

[28] A complete transcript of the entire interview is available in Wallace, Mike. “Transcript of Interview of Vietnam War Veteran on His Role in Alleged Massacre of Civilians at Songmy.” Internet Archive. November 24, 1969. Retrieved June 30, 2016.

[29] Archives of American Art (AAA). Roll 2178. Frames 139-339.  Also referenced in Frascina, Francis. Art, Politics, and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America. Manchester University Press. 1999. pp175-176.

[30] Art Workers Coalition. And Babies. December 1969. Poster.

[31] Such as the comments made by Eugene Rostow earlier in the same year.

[32] Particularly the Truman Doctrine which was supposedly drafted to free people from communism and oppression.  See Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, “The Truman Doctrine,” (1947) in Hoffman, Elizabeth Cobbs; Blum, Edward J.; Gjerde, Jon. Major Problems in American History, Volume II: Since 1865. Third Edition. Wadsworth, Boston. 2012. pp305-306.

[33] Bryan-Wilson, Julia.  Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era. University of California Press. 2009. p20.

[34] Bryan-Wilson, 2009. pp20-22.

[35] McNamara, 1995. pp216-218.

[36] McNamara, 1995. p315.

[37] Makower, Joel; Lang, Michael; Rosenman, Joel. Woodstock: The Oral History. State University of New York Press. 2009. p60-61.

[38] Untitled Poster. Woodstock Ventures. 1969.  This is as seen in Makower, 2009. p106.

[39] This quote found in Makower, 2009. p106.

[40] Makower, 2009. pp104-107.

[41] Bryan-Wilson, 2009. P10.

[42] John Lennon particularly outspoken with his descriptions of how wrong and senseless the war was.  More comments in Wiener, 1991. pp16-18.

[43] Chafe, William H. The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II. Seventh Edition. 2011. Oxford University Press. pp386-388.

[44] Chafe, 2011. pp365-369.

[45] Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. 2009. Scribner Publishing, New York City. pp552-555.

[46] Andre, Carl. “People of Vietnam.” Art-Rite. Spring 1975. p53.

[47] Bryan-Wilson, 2009. p78.

[48] Bryan-Wilson, 2009. p79.

[49] Bryan-Wilson, 2009. p187.

[50] Graves, Ralph. “Larry Burrows, Photographer.” TIME Life Magazine. February 19, 1971.

[51] Such as pushing helicopters off aircraft carriers or attempting to pile as many people into helicopters as possible on business rooftops.

[52] Van Es, Hubert. Evacuation of Saigon. Bettman Images. 1975.