Critical Review: Hamm

In his article, Hamm criticizes Paul Simon for taking advantage of the musical culture of South Africa without taking a stance against the apartheid or in some way contributing to the liberation movement.  However, in making this criticism, Hamm blurs the line between criticizing Paul Simon and criticizing the culture that his album represents.  He quotes a complaint that Graceland perpetuates a style where African music provides the rhythm complexity and European tradition provides the melodic interest.  However, is it really Paul Simon's fault that this is the culture he is a product of?  The relationship between culture and art is complex; culture is of course a product of art, but art is also a product of culture.  I am not saying that this makes it okay, per se, but rather that the more interesting study here is on the culture that values the juxtaposition of African rhythm and European melody, rather than the art that caters to it.  Most of all, though, I think that it is a completely different issue from Paul Simon's political stance, and the two should not be confused.  

The argument against the lack of explicit political content in Graceland seeks the moral high ground through the claim that Paul Simon engages in a commensal relationship with South African musical culture.  However, whether he should have done something to support the liberation movement is different from whether or not he had a responsibility to.  On one level, whenever there is injustice, it is everyone's duty not to stand aside.  However, the criticism of Graceland clearly implies that his appropriation of South African culture in some way indebted him in a way that required him to support the liberation movement.  

One argument is simply that if you get involved at all with South African culture, you are too close to an injustice to stand aside.  However, this is still different from the issue of whether he owes them anything.  He used their culture, surely he is in their debt.  However, I am not so sure that this is true.  Who does the culture belong to?  Does it belong to the collective group of South Africans?  Or does it belong to each individual within that culture?  If the former, than all that is required is for him to contribute to the culture, not the people.  If the later, than he could never hope to repay each individual, and in any case, as long as he treated the musicians fairly, he has treated the tradition bearers and owners of the culture appropriately, for they have as much claim to own and share it as any other individual.  The final argument against Graceland is that even though he might not have owed anything, Graceland provided an opportunity to speak out against injustice on a global front.  Having the opportunity to reach such a large audience with such a meaningful message, Paul Simon should have taken it because him speaking out in this instance would be far more consequential than anyone else speaking out in the circumstance surrounding their voice.  This I think is the most interesting and strongest argument against Graceland.  One the one hand, relinquishing this opportunity is giving up a chance to make the world a better place.  On the other hand, if he felt it would mean a tarnishing in the quality of the art, did he not have a responsibility to improve the world by making the best piece of art possible?  

Challenge Question: Do artists have a responsibility to be socially conscious, or do they just have a responsibility to make the best art they can?  If they try to strike a balance, and the balance requires even the slightest diminishment in the quality of the art, is it worth it?  

Follow up question: Would the world really be a better place if Mozart had fed the homeless of Salzburg instead of writing his operas?