the surroundings were working against the experiment. i think if i'd run the experiment i'd have done it successive days, at slightly different times, with different sensory prompting in that hallway across the plaza. a color, a smell, a different floor surface. cuz i think this is more a test of the oppressiveness of the space than of the people's mindsets. would it have been the same in an open space, on a warm day? i doubt it.

in the last video, there's a little conversation, someone recognizes the musician, and says, "this is one of those things that could only happen in DC." god, i hadn't thought about that, that every city is so totally involving for the residents.

looking for pretty things....

I think it mainly demonstrates that some art requires training to appreciate. It's no surprise that half the people who stayed to listen were violinists or at least knew something about violins.

In fact, with music in general, people tend to appreciate pieces more when they already know them, I think. When I go to a concert, whether classical or rock, I tend to appreciate the performance much better if I actually know the piece or the song. Once I know it, I know what look for, I can recognize variations and flourishes, and I can appreciate the nuances.

So I think beauty is neither absolute nor merely subjective. I think much beauty is LEARNED, appreciated through training.

Thing is -- there's good stuff all around us. There's the sun in a clear blue sky, the sound of pigeons' wings, the majestic glide of a 747 coming in for a landing. The taste of my morning latte, savored instead of gulped. Another New Yorker article. The shape of a tiny waterfall in the street gutter.

The world _is_ full of beauty and pleasant sensation, and I would be quite happy to spend at least 50% of my day appreciating it. Frankly, if I did, I'd get nothing _done_. It's all very well to cite de Toqueville and shake one's head at the American fetish for working too much, but a world this full of shiny toys could not continue to function if adults didn't prevent themselves from getting distracted.

So, to 99% of the passers-by, Joshua Bell was an interesting distraction. His music may have been beautiful, interesting -- but so are myriad other things that we have to ignore for our own good. Advertising, for instance! The other 1% were afficionados who recognized that he was remarkable even within his own genre.

I think we should distinguish two conclusions: (1) that only 1% of passers-by can identify superlative violin playing; and (2) that at 9 AM, commuters will ignore random beautiful things.

The former is a cultural data point, and we can debate what it means. The latter, I'm afraid, is simply the mark of a functioning society.

Oh, incidentally, I was glad to see the Post article mention the "I don't want to feel like I have to give money to the performer" issue. Sometimes, I'm intrigued by street performers, and would like to stop long enough to get an idea what they're doing. But I feel that if I actually pay attention for more than 15 seconds, then I have consumed their product, and am obligated to pay them.

I actually end up resenting that quite a bit. They're like the guys with squeegees at traffic lights, who wash your windows and then demand money. I feel that a performer has forced me to stare straight ahead and walk away as quickly as possible, in order to avoid consuming his/her product (which would morally compel me to give some money, against my will).

This can actually ruin an entire area (e.g. Venice Beach) for me. I feel vaguely that there should be some other moral perspective on this, but I can't really find one.

Hibiscus-
I think that putting it in a different place would defeat the point. If I was in an open space, on a warm day, then I also would have time and be ready to take time out to look for beauty. The question I thought was more, "Would people notice in the everyday context of their lives?" I took from the article much more of Robin's conclusion (2) than conclusion (1).

As a former busker, I can say that appreciative listeners meant more to me than the money. I don't see my music as a product to be consumed. I can't really speak for anyone else, but a smile or a kind word can mean a lot to a performer, in whatever setting. (A dollar doesn't hurt either.)

rishi: different place is a matter of architecture and design. nothing requires that a passageway from one train to another be identical to a prison lavatory. it's done that way because it's cheaper, but, considering how many people use it, how often, it's false economizing, and it created an unattractive public space.

robin: so, what you want is to support programs that pay musicians to play in public places. and, what you wrote, it seems to assume that productivity is incompatible with creativity or spontaneous learning. that's very troubling to me, on the grounds that in many ways where you end up is where you think you will, not where you have to.

If the subway station in question is anything like any given Toronto subway, Metallica couldn't break threw the noise, let alone a violin. Even if it is Joshua Bell.

kgp

but if it had been metallica it would have drawn a crowd like crazy. (i am currently bopping to madonna's "cherish"). so there's that other part which is like, holding it against the rest of DC for not going to a particular night at the opera. and i get the sense that some people who go do hold it against the rest. even though the symphony hall is as big as it is because that's about the level of interest it can support.

what if it had been dave matthews on acoustic guitar, instead? or missy elliot and a beat box? or if it has to be more esoteric, a modern ambient electronica musician, maybe even working out ideas from that bach piece.

i mean, does the experiment require beauty to be purely mechanical? after reading the incredible difficulty of building the instrument he was playing, how can you describe that strad as being equivalent to natural beauty?

A couple of responses.

To Lisa: You make a good point. I'd be terribly happy if a performer were to put up a small sign saying, "Please enjoy my music, and contribute only if you feel it deserved," or something vaguely to that effect. I'm completely dependent on "rules of engagement" in social settings, and this is a setting where I have no idea what they are. What do I do if the performer makes [shudder] eye contact??? Aaagghh! (N.B. this is partly self-mocking exaggeration, but essentially true).

To Hibiscus: I'm generally in favor of such programs. Sadly, I confess that I have trouble with the concept of charitable giving in daily life (I didn't grow up with other people), but I'm very much in favor of it in the abstract.

When you write, "what you wrote, it seems to assume that productivity is incompatible with creativity or spontaneous learning," I fear I've been misunderstood. I'm fortunate enough to have a job (theoretical physicist) that consists almost entirely of creativity and spontaneous learning. To do it well -- i.e., to produce something of use to others, like a great lecture or a new understanding of quantum mechanics -- requires that I discipline myself sternly. Given the opportunity, I would flit like a moth from one point of beauty to another. I would listen to the Rach 3, learn category theory, re-read all of Doonesbury, comment on Saheli's blog, and write something in Lisp.

All of this would contribute greatly to my pleasure, but would not benefit anyone else. This is why I -- like any other responsible human being -- can only afford to spend a certain amount of time enjoying beautiful things. We must all be Morlocks some of the time, else we are Eloi at best -- and that is a dreadful fate to consider.

robin: This is why I -- like any other responsible human being -- can only afford to spend a certain amount of time enjoying beautiful things.

not sure that follows. beauty is a practice. in some ways, that's what people are doing with their faith, making their lives prettier, decorating with meaning. and there's a lot of dull or concentrated work, or time at home, or time in transit, that can done more beautifully, in better surroundings, and so.

prolly the ambiguity here comes from the very strict framing of beauty placed by the article (but nicely removed by rishi).

i'm not talking about taking time to stop and smell the flowers. i'm talking about putting flowers in more places so you don't have to stop to smell them. there's no reason not to do that, it won't cause a stock market crash or something.

Hibiscus,

You write, "i'm talking about putting flowers in more places so you don't have to stop to smell them," and I heartily agree. In fact, I'd be happy to have Joshua Bell playing in the corner of my office! (okay, actually, that might be sort of distracting...)

This isn't precisely what the Post did, though. They didn't put Bell on the subway, where people didn't have to stop to smell him (so to speak). They put him in the hallway, which is designed to be traversed. Each minute spent listening had a price -- getting to work a minute later.

So, you're right that many of us could enjoy beauty more of the time, at the same time as we make the world a better place. I might have better said, "We can only afford to spend a certain amount of time exclusively enjoying beautiful things."

Such an interesting article. I think Hibiscus raises some good points, but I wonder what would've happened if they'd tried the same thing on a different *day* - i.e. a Saturday.

I know from traveling the Subway here in NYC that people definitely have blinders on in a way weekdays - scurrying like so many rats through a maze to work - in a different way, perhaps, from weekends.

That said, it's sad so few recognized the beauty of his performance if not his person!