“War is fear cloaked in courage.” - General William Westmoreland 

“Hearts and Minds” is a 1974 documentary film by Peter Davis, which was one of the few of its kind to be filmed and released before the end of the war. The film vilified the American military, which is perhaps one of the main reasons why it received so many mixed reviews. The film begins with scenes of life in rural North Vietnam, with farmers working the land, women carrying crops, children playing in the countryside. This imagery is intended to invoke our sympathy for the North Vietnamese - that they are normal human beings, and not the bloodthirsty savages they have been depicted as. Later on We see corrupt American soldiers using their power over the Vietnamese dishonestly by seeking prostitutes, buying drugs, and ignoring a starving young boy. These acts represent corruption, heartlessness, and disinterest. The film is sprinkled with scenes straight from popular culture, such as war scenes in films glorifying war and bloodshed, or calling out to defeat “the yellow-skinned savages.” One of the most notable of these scenes is where a mother begs her son to recount how he swore he wasn’t a communist, and then closes her eyes in pride and relief. In the scenes depicting Lt. Coker’s return home, there is an overload of patriotic symbols – crowds waving the American flag, a marching band and a parade, etc. The film seems to mock this ceremony, reminding us that they are celebrating the return of a soldier who has been destroying innocent victims in Vietnam. If this unspoken fact wasn’t made obvious during these scenes, it is surely explicit through Lt. Coker’s interviews when he glorifies his involvement in Vietnam, depicting the slaughters as if it was a dream-like reverie. Lt. Coker’s bloodlust is echoed in veteran Randy Floyd’s accounts of bombing Vietnam and feeling no remorse, but only excitement and pride. Floyd’s porch-side testimonials reflect the wanton bloodlust of the American military stationed in Vietnam and their heartlessness. There is also a scene where it is described that Ho Chi Minh reached out to the US government numerous times to help them in their cause to rebel against the colonization by France, hoping it would conjure up our own struggle against the British long ago. However, his pleas are ignored, and we are shown scenes of Revolutionary War re-enactments where the actors are vehemently describing the struggle against the rebels of America against the tyranny of Britain, echoing Ho Chi Minh’s cries. The film aims not only to condemn American involvement in the war, but also attempts to have the audience sympathize with the plight of the Vietnamese.

“The Devil Came on Horseback” is a 2007 documentary film by Ricki Stern and Anne Sundberg, based on former US Marine Captain Brian Steidle’s book of the same title. Steidle recounts his former involvement in the US Marine Corps, ultimately ranking as a Captain, and how he comes from a long lineage of family members involved in the US military. Upon completing his required 4 years as a Marine, Steidle decides that instead of serving another 7 years on desk duty, he decided to seek out another job where his services would be needed. Steidle learns of a job where he would serve as an unarmed military observer to monitor the cease-fire in the civil war in Sudan. The 22-year-old civil war has been between the Muslim government against Christian and animist rebels in the country’s southern region. Steidle relocates to Sudan and recounts that although the civil war between North and South Sudan has reached a cease-fire he becomes aware of a conflict close by in West Sudan, notably the Darfur region, which has no direct involvement with the civil war. The Janjaweed - an Arabic colloquialism for a “man with a gun on a horse” - is a militia comprised of nomadic Arab tribesmen who attack the established Christian African farmers, fighting over scarce water and land resources. The Janjaweed started to become much more aggressive in 2003, after two non-Arab groups, the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, took up arms against the Sudanese government, alleging mistreatment by the Arab regime in Khartoum. In response to the uprising, the Janjaweed militias began pillaging towns and villages inhabited by members of the African tribes from which the rebel armies draw their strength—the Zaghawa, Masalit, and Fur tribes. It is alleged that the Sudanese government (which is based in the predominantly Muslim capital of Khartoum) had been funding the Janjaweed and equipping them with weapons to systematically destroy the Christian black Africans. In one scene of the film, it is stated that the gas lines running through out the nation have been tapped by the government of the China, and this revenue goes through the Sudanese government and into the hands of the Janjaweed, implying that China is inadvertently funding the genocide – placing culpability in not only the Sudanese government, but also foreign investors.

The film utilized first-hand account to its advantage, through photography, audio recordings, and personal emails read aloud. An abundance of graphic photographs portray the mass murders of the innocent villagers of Darfur; the victims have been burned alive, shot to death execution style, had their eyes gouged out and their ears cut off, and various other atrocities have been committed. Unlike, “Hearts and Minds,” only one point of view is made obvious - Brian Steidle’s passionate, and righteous, disgust and anger over the Sudanese government’s alliance with the Janjaweed to systematically kill black Africans. There is one scene where a member of the Janjaweed is interviewed directly, confirming weapons, ammunition, and commission have all been distributed by the Sudanese government to the Janjaweed in exchange for destroying the villages throughout Darfur. However, the member of the Janjaweed does not defend himself with contrived notions of patriotism or courage - it is forthright stated this is genocide. Steidle is outraged that he cannot directly defend the innocent villagers, that he must watch them get slaughtered, their homes pillaged, and their women raped, and that his reports have been either lost or ignored by officials in Khartoum, and that other Americans in Sudan have said and done nothing about the conflict. After his stay is over in Sudan, Steidle rounds up all his evidence – photographs, recordings, video, and his own testimony – and brings it back to the states where he shows his sister who implores him to make it known to the US government what has really been happening. “The Devil Came on Horseback” places blame on America, and the international community s a whole, for doing little or nothing to help end the conflict.

Summary: In today’s fast-paced society, it is not uncommon for people to constantly move around different homes, schools, etc. New York City is renowned for living by the mantra of “Out with old, and in with the new,” rarely clinging onto traditions and property for any extended period of time. However, a fraternity has been able to pass on an apartment from generation to generation of collegiate fraternity members despite the process of constant change around them. What role does tradition play in the life of a student? What does being a part of a fraternity, or Greek life in general, constitute? Considering Pratt Institute is an art school and not a typical state school, how has this influenced Greek life on campus? I plan on answering these questions, or at least reaching several conclusions about them. I also want to find out what these questions mean to the Pratt community in general and to those involved in Greek life. Despite all these questions I would like to be answered, I acknowledge my project can and will be able to change course quite easily, and I am open to any other questions/answers that will be brought up during my investigation.

Work plan: I will discuss my ideas with the president of the fraternity, and those who currently live in the apartment. Hopefully I will be given permission to take photos, videos, etc. in an inconspicuous manner. I also want to get in contact with those who have previously lived in the apartment, find out about the origins of the apartment, and learn their future plans concerning the property. I also want to discuss the role the apartment has played in the fraternity, and vice versa.

Resources: Video camera, camera

As a student attending a prestigious art school, it is often brought to my attention that a degree isn’t required to become a successful artist in today’s society. Although this is technically true, the importance of art schools should not be diminished for the sake of this argument. If this were the case, then should all colleges be eliminated because many successful and affluent people have never even graduated from high school, much less college? Obviously not. Thiery De Duve argues that the role of the art school is completely irrelevant, outdated, and over-appreciated. The art school’s goal to transmit ideas and products from teacher to student to fellow artist is an unreasonable path; instead artwork must be constantly filtered through the public. As De Duve claims, “the true artist is the one who emerges from the crowd when he receives its blessing ‘with every delay,’ not the one who comes out of an Ecole des Beaux-Arts equipped with a diploma.” De Duve continues to undermine the significance of art institutions: “Under these conditions, anyone can be an artist and anything can be art, which is not without consequence regarding the knowledge we must have of the artworld, in which the best art schools play an explicit part.” Considering the institution of the art school is an extraneous one, de Duve argues that it is crucial we establish other means of disseminating art, ideas, and the like to the general public to ensure proper funding and a positive future for the artworld.  

Although public interaction is indeed crucial and inevitable for the sake of art, what de Duve fails to realize is that the art school is where the most influential leaders of the art world are created. Not every one who attends art school is the next Duchamp, but it is here where visionary leaders are created, where art is more than creation, but is also conception. Brois Grusy argues that it is here where students are constantly “infected” by outdated concepts, where they must adapt to these infections to better their work for a newer aesthetic and ideology. Gruys argues that the “bacilli of art” is best incubated in art schools, but that it is unavoidable to get “infected” by other factors, politics for example. It is important to resist damage by exteriority – to adapt and change ones art for the better. The art school’s success as an institution of constant change and renewal, where it is “out with the old, and in with the new” is crucial in the artworld of today. As Gruys so aptly put it, “self-infection by art education must go on if we do not want to let the bacilli of art die.”

Are all humans innately the “same?” Is there a common set of traits, ideals, beliefs that compose a general “human nature,” or is this a fabricated concept constructed by bourgeois white men to excuse their actions? Marshall Sahlins’ The Western Illusion of Human Nature argues that our common belief of “human nature” is not one that is written in stone and can be proven scientifically, but instead differs from person to person, and must take into account different cultures, lifestyles, etc. Hobbesian theory is often mistaken to be a true account of human nature – that “man is innately evil.” However, human beings are not born with inherent qualities, personalities, and the like, but rather we are born “tabula rasa,” or blank slate. The “Western illusion” is the belief that this theory is valid, which would be beneficial for the bourgeois white men. Capitalism, our society’s greed and moral wanton, our reckless desire to outdo everyone is often condoned because it is in our “nature” to act this way.  In all reality, Western society has conditioned us to become this way – one could not possibly prove, or disprove, that all of mankind has been this way and will always be this way. How were the men of yesteryear, our ancient ancestors? Did they fight to the death over a piece of land that they arbitrarily considered “mine?” Are all societies on this large and vast planet interested in wealth, possession, and power? It would be an erroneous and close-minded mistake to assume all people are the same as we are.

It can be argued that if such destructive and selfish habits are not a part of human nature, then why does capitalism, the divisions between the wealthy and the poor, etc. exist from generation to generation? It is important to consider that all of these generations are exposed to these conditions, but that it has not been this way since the beginning of time. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued in On the Origin of Inequality, it is probable to conclude that society was devoid of greed until the day a man claimed an object, such as a tree, or a patch of earth, as “mine,” although it indeed belonged to nature. Here began the concept of property which ultimately leads to the want and lack of property, and the creation of currency as a means to obtain property. John Addams once said, “All men would be tyrants if they could.” This Hobbesian view that all men (bourgeois white men, to be exact) are evil is a viewpoint that human nature is indeed evil. This evil is evil in the sense that we are selfish, and uninterested for the welfare of others; that we are solely interested in endeavors that will ultimately lead to a profit, that even in “kind” endeavors that they are done so only to ultimately lead to some sort of gain. This cycle of greed and want is cultivated by our consumerist society, not by some innate quality.

Sahlins argument that “human nature” does not actually exist, when taken into context with photography would support the belief that, “The image freezes and endless number of possibilities; words determine a single certainty…that is why all news photographs are captioned.” The idea that a photograph can and should be able to demonstrate, argue, or prove something would be erroneous to Sahlins considering that dependent on the background of an individual, a photograph would mean something wholly different to each and every person. If the idea of “human nature” was accurate, then all photography would be interpreted the same, which is obviously not the case. There are countless novels, articles, and the like created for the sole purpose of discussing the potential meaning of a photograph. If there was only one possible viewpoint that could be derived from a photograph, there would be no need for captions, or blurbs, or introductions to photography books. No two people are exactly alike; there are countless variables such as age, race, gender, where the person was raised, what schooling did they receive if any, their income, what generation they were born in, what religion they were exposed to, their likes and dislikes, their exposure to other people’s viewpoints, how much they have travelled, and the list goes on and on. The way photography is interpreted is a combination of what the photographer has created and what the viewer deduces from the creation – the way it is understood, what context it is placed in, the viewers own biases, etc. When a viewer sees a photograph, besides the obvious technical aspects of the work such as lighting and exposure, other aspects are considered in more earnest detail, such as the emotional effect the photograph produces, what the photograph is trying to imply, the subjects of the photograph and their relationship to each other. If a child who has been born in Middle America, in a small, suburban, all-white neighborhood were to view a photograph of an African tribe in ceremonial garb headdresses, they could possibly be frightened. However, if an older person, who has seen African, or African-American people, who has been exposed to different cultural customs and ceremonies, were to see the photograph they could appreciate it as an ode to beautiful cultural customs.

Most would agree that all people will interpret a photograph differently, so why wouldn’t this also prove that “human nature” could not possibly exist?  The concept of human nature as being evil excuses and condones our Western society’s inclination for capitalism, wealth and greed. “What we are pleased to consider human nature mostly consists of the inclinations of (bourgeois) adult males…” and this is wrong and should no longer be given as an excuse for ruthlessness, greed, and lack of consideration or caring to other fellow human beings. This concept holds the views of a minority to be true, a minority that also has the most stake and influence in our Western society. This pathetic argument that human nature is evil or whatever is only continuing the cycle of holding the ideals of greed and depravity over morality and kindness. It does not take into account that Western society is not representative of all humans that have ever been and ever will be, that will have varying opinions and prejudices, and art, especially photography, will and always has been interpreted differently.