Guernica to Woodstock – A Short Digression
Written August 11th, 2020
I would have never suspected that a link existed between the two, but there it was right in front of me, Picasso and Hendrix, artists separated by a generation, a continent, and a World War. But due to their extraordinary talents, and the fame resulting from it, their works are known to even the casual public, especially the two pieces that I will discuss in a moment. Yet my point here is ultimately not Picasso or Hendrix, nor even to the two works at the center of this note, but rather a far more significant theme that lurks just beneath their surfaces.
What am I talking about, you may ask? Well in my opinion, just the most important ideal that a free and open society can hope to offer to the world, uncensored artistic expression. My failure to see the connection between the two was exposed while watching a YouTube video of Hendrix’s “Star Spangle Banner” as he performed it at his Woodstock appearance. While listening, I decided to check out the comment section, which can occasionally expose some clarifying opinions, and it was there I found this observation.
“Anyone who can’t get that this is his version of Picasso’s “Guernica” is an ape, and should cease imagining that they understand music, fresh fruit, or anything else available to even the meanest of intelligences. If you can’t get THIS, then you have that mental capacity of an office chair”.
Aside from his colorful description, the point is nonetheless there in black and white. It’s unavoidable, in fact. His point being that Hendrix and Picasso were drawing from the same well of indignation, the same visceral reaction to an unjust act or war.
In Picasso’s case, the year was 1937, and Spain was in the midst of a civil war, with Hitler’s Reich favoring one particular side in the conflict. Unfortunately, the city of Guernica (Spain) was a known haven for the opposing faction, so in April of that year, the German air force was given orders to “train” on new bombing strategies by using Guernica as target practice. The result being that scores of innocent people were killed over the course of their two-hour bombing raid, including women and children. The attack was unprovoked with no warning given.
Picasso’s response was his masterpiece “Guernica” (below), which captured his immediate reaction to the carnage. Although he lived in Paris at the time, he was born in Spain, and was intimately aware of the political situation and could have hardly been a disinterested observer. With this stunningly expressive painting, he astutely chose to use only dark, cold colors, such as dark blues, greys and even black to convey the distorted and mangled scene without the contradictory tone that warm colors would have elicited, thereby expressing the event as if it came directly from a newsprint dispatch from the front line as each figure is captured at the height of their suffering, such as a disemboweled horse, a mother holding her dead child (far left), another woman screaming with arms raised while being consumed by fire (upper right). There is also a lone man on the ground, cut down holding a broken sword to symbolize the resistance, such as it was.
Picasso also produced the painting on a massive canvas that stretched 11 feet high by 25 feet wide, as if to make his statement unavoidable. It seems obvious that his use of such a large canvas was intended to function as a shout at the top of his lungs at the atrocity, and thereby giving voice to our own indignation. The result was the 20th centuries most visceral expression of anti-war sentiment and outrage yet produced.
Now let’s move onto the “Hendrix” part in this equation. At his Woodstock performance, likely no one expected to witness a defining moment in his career. They merely expected to hear the biggest rock star of the day, the pre-eminent musician/artist of their generation, yet Hendrix had a surprise in mind. Mid-way through his set, Hendrix startled the audience with his “modified” rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner”. At the time, America was struggling mightily with the Vietnam War with anti-war protests raging across the country. The conservative media saw this as subversive and a direct provocation against the country.
For the uninitiated, Hendrix’s rendition of our national anthem is not intended for the “America, Mom and Apple Pie” conservatives out there but is rather a wilting political commentary on the destruction and mayhem that America was inflicting on Vietnamese civilians. Nightly news reports made it unavoidable for Americans to ignore as American GI’s were seen burning the homes and even entire villages of Vietnamese farmers and peasants, as part of our war strategy.
I believe Hendrix composed his interpretation to poignantly weave together both the stately version of our anthem that we all know so well, together with the emotional outrage he felt at America’s prosecution of the war. For instance, he begins the piece by simply playing the melody straight-up, with each note right on cue, but then slowly introduces slight distortions and intended mis-notes, as if to reveal an ominous warning, only to come back to the traditional melody. The affect worked beautifully as he thoughtfully introduced an unsettling theme that begins to invade the composition as it moved forward, so that by the midway point we’re not shocked when all hell breaks loose, as he begins to abuse his guitar in order to produce all the sounds of war and carnage that he can manage. We can hear bullets strafing, bombs dropping from the sky, a firefight with the enemy and the screams of those caught in the mayhem. At one point you can almost smell the napalm in the air. Then he circles back to the main melody for its conclusion.
The piece is altogether fascinating. Not only as a display of his prowess as an artist and musician, but also to his brave defiance against the war. He caught a lot of heat at the time for “disgracing” the National Anthem during a time of war, but I don’t see it that way. Artists have always been, and should always be, on the leading edge of our cultural dialog, and Hendrix’s artistic rebuke of the war is no different. Think of it this way, just as investigative journalists function as democracy’s immune system by exposing the corruption within our political process, so artists, at least the more mature artists, serve the same function by exposing the hypocrisies in our culture and society at large.
This whole theme of artists drifting into social commentary highlights a common resistance that I’ve heard from many people over the years, that artists should shut up and “just sing” and leave their political opinions at home. As much as I disagree with that stance, I do understand their indignation, because artists are no different from anyone else, after all, and often have poorly thought out and boorish opinions, which can leave a distinctly bad taste in the month when delivered over a PA system.
As a case in point, I recall back in 2007, during Barrack Obama’s presidential campaign and the loonies in the far-right of the political spectrum were convinced that he was some radical liberal that would “take away our guns”. At some concert or political rally, the 70’s rocker and ultra conservative, Ted Nugent, walked on stage with an assault rifle (presumably unloaded) and told all in the attendance how liberals would destroy the country and other nonsense, then ended his rant by holding the assault rifle suggestively around his crotch area and invited Obama to “suck on this”. It was a disgusting display in every conceivable way. Yet as offensive and reprehensible as I find Nugent’s political opinions, I still support the importance for artists to speak their minds……..although preferably through their art and not the limitations of their intellect.
One successful example that comes to mind of this strategy involves David Crosby of “Crosby, Stills and Nash”. In 1969, at the height of the social and political mayhem that was their daily reality during the time, Crosby gave a rambling speech from the stage at a CSN concert. His rant was full of conspiracy thinking and accusations of political murder by the government and all manner of social discord. At one point the crowd began booing, and rightfully so. It was a boorish digression that interrupted an otherwise wonderful show. Afterward, the band insisted that he not be so abrasive and convinced him to use his art to express himself. The result was the stunning “Long Time Gone”, which poignantly captured his frustrations, yet this time with words and melody making his case. Here are two verses along with the closing reframe.
Turn turn any corner
Hear you must hear what the people say
You know there’s something that’s goin’ on around here
That surely, surely, surely won’t stand the light of day, no
Speak out you got to speak out against the madness
You got to speak your mind if you dare
But don’t, no don’t, no, try to get yourself elected
If you do you had better cut your hair, mmm
And it appears to be a long
Appears to be a long, mmm
Appears to be a long time
Such a long, a long, long, long, long time before the dawn
In precisely the same manner, Neil Young also provided the public with two blistering songs of his own with “Ohio” and “Southern Man”, both of which are sublime examples of a mature artist creatively voicing their utter indignation at an injustice. Bob Dylan’s “Masters of War”, John Lennon’s “Imagine”, Peter Gabriel’s’ “Biko” and Rage Against the Machine’s “Bulls On Parade” are also masterpieces of the genre.
Therefore, the connection between Picasso and Hendrix is not as unlikely as I first imagined, because each of their impassioned creations illuminates a brotherhood of a sort, of like minds that give a damn about justice and decency. Each mirror one another as expressions of outrage, yet artistically delivered. Of course, there will always be those who criticize artists, even when using their art to speak their minds, but they should try for a moment to imagine the society we would have if they didn’t….. or couldn’t. I would go even further and demand from those who object the loudest to answer a simple question. If they had the power to silence them……would they?
But they should tread very lightly there, because if they want a glimpse at what that world would look like, they should first read Orwell.