Hair controversy, freedom speech, government intervention, art work, United states, vietnam war, rock history, musical art, pamphlet, Murphey, artistic expression
As part of the work for this course, I have chosen to deal with the Hair musical controversy and its resulting issues, such as freedom of artistic expression and freedom of speech, which are allegedly core values of the United States of America. In fact, the First Amendment to the Declaration of Independence clearly states that freedom of speech grants all Americans the right to oppose the government and to say so openly, without fear of censorship or persecution . At the beginning of the 1970s, however, the country was still engaged in the Vietnam War, which began in 1954 and lasted until 1975, with the withdrawal of US troops and the reunification of Vietnam into one communist state. The beginning of the 1970s was therefore characterized by a general anti-war sentiment as well as a rejection of the values of the 1960s, now commonly known as "countercultures". It was in this context that the musical Hair was created in the mid-1960s.
[...] Those persons, too, have their moral sensitivity. Surely it is a violation of civil liberty to tax some people and then not make the facilities available for them to see a show they wish to see. But so also is it a violation of civil liberty to tax other people in order to create facilities that are then made available for the showing of plays that those others find objectionable. We ought not to forget that it violates the existential integrity of the person taxed if his tax dollars are used for something repugnant to his own moral sensibilities. [...]
[...] But he added that it did "sometimes superbly sweep the audience into a kind of frenzy of noise, pleasure, and participation." W. A. Darlington, The Daily Telegraph's 78-year old critic, wrote his final review before retiring after 48 years on the job. He said he had "tried hard," but found the evening complete bore - noisy, ugly and quite desperately funny." Copyright The New York Times Company. All rights reserved. [...]
[...] And, as mentioned above, the fact that this is now considered normal (l. the "bulwarks" (walls) that these principles should have been, are unsuccessful in protecting people from government intervention. He then considers the other point of view, which is that the voice of the people is not being heard by the government. Indeed, the commissions referred to on line 67 are composed of non-elected individuals who have been nominated and approved by the members of the City Council, while the commission advises the Wichita City Council, and its task is to report on city policies and legislation and to make recommendations. [...]
[...] He is therefore critical of the government's intervention. What he is trying to point out is that now that people have agreed that the government is suited to addressing these issues, it can "exercise discretion," which means that it has the freedom to make its own choices and that it is difficult to find a common ground. This "governmental aid to the arts" is a reference to the Federal Art Project of 1935-43, the aim of which was to fund the arts in the USA, to establish art centers across the country and to commission a significant body of public art without limitation on content or subject matter. [...]
[...] which delayed the opening for an hour. All right, there are four letter words popping like popcorn, some words that cannot be used here but mostly words like love and life. All right, there are sexual simulations, some quite explicit, and a hymn to "Sodomy." All right, at the end of the first act, to a haunting questioning ballad, "Where Do I a squadron of young men and women strip to the unmistakable buff in a dim half-light that hardly separates the girls from the boys while a red psychedelic beam sweeps over them, a tableau about as salacious as Renoir. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
