Recently I was forwarded an email which I excerpt below:
Washington, DC Metro Station on a cold January morning in 2007. The man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time approx. 2 thousand people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. After 3 minutes a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.
4 minutes later: the violinist received his first dollar: a woman threw the money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.
6 minutes: A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.
10 minutes: A 3-year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. Every parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.
45 minutes: The musician played continuously. Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while. About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.
1 hour: He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before, Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.
This is a true story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people’s priorities. The questions raised: in a common place environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?
I found the story fascinating, and checked it at several online sites to verify its truth (eg, Snopes). Not only is the story true, but the WashPost reporter who covered it received a Pulitzer for the article.
What a sobering thing - that we might not perceive beauty in an ordinary, daily context!
My own past experience has taught me to be careful about the company one’s artwork keeps; when a piece I know to be good is hung with average county-fair art in a whitewashed cinder-block building, that piece dims…as though one good work of art cannot entirely overcome the mediocrity around it. Or think of your own perceptions walking into a gallery: if you see only quality work at every turn, you think the more highly of all of it. But as soon as you see something sub-par, suddenly the rest of the work feels more ordinary.
As a cynic I once knew used to say, art is worth only what someone will pay at a garage sale for it. Think of those legendary garage-sale finds we sometimes read about - the Picasso or whatever - sold for a few dollars, now worth millions.
What do you think?
Entries (RSS)
October 21st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Julie-
“What a sobering thing - that we might not perceive beauty in an ordinary, daily context!”
That speaks volumes about our society here in the states. I would think in our
part of our world, someone playing music as Joshua Bell would be surrounded and applauded probably not recognized, but still be noted for his efforts.
I would guess to say that if he had played in Europe or almost anywhere in
Europe he would have gotten noticed.
People forget the US is a young country and has yet to mature. Even though the US is world leader, beautiful music being passed up on even if it is in a subway says alot about the attitudes about the arts in this country and the need for change.
I would also say that alot of so called “artists” need to change their attitudes
as well. As an artist I do embrace “other” art forms, but lets face it,
spreading urine on a canvas or whatever bodily fluid does not constitute art!!
This trailer park trash kind of work has help lead to the downfall of the public
preception of being an artist of anykind (music, theater, fine arts etc.). Being
an Artist you have a resposibility to be the best that you can be. It takes hard work,long hours, dedication and the realization that you need to work on your
talent to become better.
Only will when our attitudes as artists change and trailer park trash art is taken to the dump will attitudes and preceptions of the arts will change.
Doug
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 am
Very interesting… I will be pondering this today… both at the easel and out in the field. I certainly agree with you, Julie, about sub-par art dragging down the perception of quality works. I too am very careful about where my paintings hang.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I wrote a piece about this subject some years ago. The idea that people walk around and miss the beauty that surrounds them is so surprising and yet probably shouldnt be.
The appreciation of beauty is inately human. We are made for it, but in the past hundred years have become so busy that we cant pay attention to our surroundings. (This includes trying to do other things while driving.)
I dont think this is a patently US thing, though. When you get so many people in close quarters and in a hurry, whether it’s here or in London or Munich or Mumbai, they will turn inward.
Your observation about surroundings and perception is good. The key is - “Perception is Reality”.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Good thing no one knew his violin was worth $3.5 million…or more people probably would have paid attention to him, or, more precisely, it (though probably not the kind of attention he was looking for!)
I think one has to be careful in equating lack of people “stopping” in this case– and the low take in his “till” — with the idea that “in a common place environment at an inappropriate hour, we don’t perceive or appreciate beauty” or “recognize talent in an unexpected context”.
There are many extraneous (and possibly overriding) factors involved in this case, not least the fact that people on their way to work usually are in a rush and have NO time to stop (for anything!). Other factors: it was cold (January!), most people are not familiar with classical music, subway stations are VERY noisy so unless you walked right up next to where he was playing, you might not even have HEARD it!
Unfortunately, like so much other social science “research”, this leaves a lot to be desired.
It’s a great story and one can take all kinds of “lessons” from it, but they may not be the least bit valid.
Finally, it occurs to me that when Van Gogh was painting, most well known artists would not have been caught dead “hanging” with him or his paintings.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Yes, it proves reasonably well that almost all the value in “art” is really marketing. There are other similar examples . . . pop musicians busking and making zero, when their albums sell for millions . . . so it’s clearly not the music that people like
I’ve played violin in the street in the UK, and make up to $70 dollars an hour, on a rather cheaper violin
I am well aware that when I play in the street, I get payed because of what “classical music” represents to pepple in terms of class, culture etc. Very few of them actually LIKE the music in it’s own right . . . they just want to be what it represents . . . look at adverts, they don’t really advertise the product much at all usually, they advertise what the product REPRESENTS in terms of sex, money, power, etc.
Before anyone thinks that marketing creating value is limited to the arts . . . look at what happened when the owner (Ratner) of a company making ordinary, every-day products such as cheap jewelery and cutlery etc. was caught on camera saying “the reason our products are so cheap is that they are crap” . . . the products became worthless overnight . . . the company lost half a BILLION pounds and went bankrupt. So marketing creating value applies to things other than art, which most people would find very surprising.
I wrote a recent blog post on the relationship between aesthetics, emotions, fine art and popular imagery, which certainly relates to this topic . . .
http://www.wildlife-art-guide.com/blog/aesthetics-vs-emotions-fine-art-vs-popular-imagery
Also interesting to note that Mozart did not do fine art, he did “graphics” . . . he held the entire composition in his head before writing it down, so strictly speaking, he was not creating art (ie. not using the Fine Art method at all), he was creating graphics (or the equivalent musical term!).
Chris
October 27th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
To Larry’s point about Van Gogh and his contemporaries: first, I don’t know enough context to argue one way or the other (did his contemporaries even see his art? what did they think of it?). My point has to do with artists who are trying to create a representational piece but lack skill in so doing. Case in point: I was recently in an artist-run gallery. The quality of the art shown was rather uneven; for me as a viewer, seeing amateurishly executed work hanging lowered my perception of the entire gallery.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
And on the “perception is reality” note: is finely crafted music simply out of place in a subway station? that is, is the beauty of it somehow dragged down by its surroundings? or is it just that we’re too rushed to note, appreciate, care?
October 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I guess the relationship in that scenario is that people have accepted the perception that a guy playing in the subway must be a no-talent-loser (no offence intended to any buskers), or he’d be playing in a nicer place. So, they dont feel bad rushing past. If there had been a sign out, with a short bio, saying that Joshua Bell was playing in the subway, the response would probably have been different. At that point, the perception would have changed.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I was wandering around the medieval center of York, England some years ago and came upon some “buskers” playing kind of neo-celtic/jazz/world fusion stuff. A number of people had stopped to listen to them and that quickly included me because those guys were GOOD. They had a box full of money and also a couple of CDs for sale, which I bought. I googled for them on and off through the years and finally found them again. They had a new CD out, which I was able to buy from Amazon.uk. I’m also on their email mailing list.
But…I was open to being snagged by something interesting, being a visitor. However, I very, very rarely stop to listen to street musicians, much less leave any money.
Maybe New York is such a target rich environment culturally that street musicians in general don’t stand out, especially in a place where people are focused on trying to get from Point A to Point B. In that sense, location counts, but really has nothing to do with how good someone is. And with all the ambient sound in a major metro station, I think people can be forgiven for not hearing the full wonderfulness of Bell’s playing.
As far as the gallery question, I think it depends. I’ve been in galleries with ok work and the good stuff really jumps out. I’ve been to shows where the mediocre did set an unfortunate tone that the good work couldn’t overcome.
The York group’s name is Elephant Talk. They’ve gone heavily neo-celtic and they rock.
The latest CD that I know of is called “Natty Loon”.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
If no one wanted to hang their art in a gallery or show next to “mediocre art”, would anyone hang their art?? (I can not speak for anyone else, of course, but I know I would not want to hang my paintings next to mine)
How do we know that what looks like a scribble on a scrap of paper (hanging next to our own masterpiece) is not actually a “great” work of art?
In his later years, Picasso made lots of scribbles and sold them for lots of money (but they were still scribbles)
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 am
I’ve often said that an artist is just an ordinary person who pays attention, so perhaps we’re more likely than others to hear the brilliant musician playing in the subway. I have a very few treasured friends, some artists, some not, who will stop with me to appreciate an especially beautiful reflection in a mud puddle, no matter how busy we are or where we’re going.
It only takes a moment to appreciate the magic of the ordinary, or to see the extraordinary in the quotidian, but one must be in a state of mind receptive to that appreciation. It’s a state of wonderment more particular to children (which explains why the kids stopped to listen to Joshu Bell) a state gradually bludgeoned from adults by the ragged business of living (which explains why the parents urged their children to move on).
This issue of context has often frustrated me. On the one hand, I’m appalled by the blythe affirmations of the “museum-goer” who will nod his approval or exclaim “Brilliant!” in reference to an utter piece of dreck he would not have given a second glance were it not in a twenty-million dollar building on an impressive pedestal surrounded by velvet ropes. Conversely, and I’ve often brought this up in answer to those who condemn representational art, that the very fact that an artist, through sheer love and devotion, interprets the details of a leaf, a blade of grass, or a clump of fur, draws attention to and in fact elevates that subject, causing it to BE NOTICED BY THE MASSES in a way it otherwise would not be. It is perhaps a sad comment on humanity that the bird or ground squirrel or garden snail that I could happily observe for hours on end needs to be in a frame on a wall for others to appreciate it as I do. On the other hand, as an artist it is not just my job, but my privilege to do justice to the subject in question by granting it the CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE of fine art.
As to the question of the context in which we present our own work, I can only offer that when an artist sells his work, he is really selling himself. Of course everyone must start somewhere (and all the best stories have humble beginings) but if an artist presents himself as polished, professional, and deserving of the best representation, that is what he will get. If, on the other hand, he settles for a collective where his work is smothered by amateur watercolors from the local senior center, that image becomes equally manifest in his career. This is not to say that the best of us cannot suffer setbacks regardless of how we present ourselves or with whom we are aligned, but certainly the old adage about character applies to the artist as well: you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. And so too it goes for all of his associations.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Wow…….There certainly is some beautifully, artistically expressed thoughts here on this topic. I so enjoyed the poetic posts that many of the points were lost in the enjoyment of the writing. I really have not a clue as to who most of you are in life. You could be internationally known writers or complete unknowns but I enjoyed it just the same. I’ve often wished I could write so well.
Just an ordinary person paying attention. ;0)
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Christy, Andrew is an amazing artist - check out his work at http://www.andrewdenman.com. And your post is wonderful - made me smile.
Andrew et alia, maybe artists are children who never quite grow up. I know I’m fascinated by critters of all kinds - even a moth, a bee, I can look at for a long time. I have loads of photographs of insects, spiders, and so on which I’m sure any sane, levelheaded person would wonder why the hell I took. But they’re beautiful bits of life and I can’t pass them up! Yesterday I was overtaken by some vivid orange lichen on a concrete post, fergawdsakes. A week ago at an agility trial in Idaho Falls someone had found a newt / salamander under some hay in a barn stall - I had to hold it and look at it for a while (even though surrounded by the bedlam and entertainment of dogs and agility everywhere) - it was so unexpected and out of context.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
You weren’t kidding about Andrew being an amazing artist Julie!
I am fond of your Golden Eagle Andrew but I Love the picture on your home page.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Nothing tickles me more than seeing critters do silly things. Tonight sitting on the deck after dark - wrapped in my blanket, I watched a raccoon climb up a skinny pole to the suet in the bird feeders. Grabbed a bunch of the stuff with his paws and down to the ground to lick it all off. Then - just now I was again outside and I see something I thought was a cat strutting through the yard - but wait - it’s not a cat - its a little red fox! Haven’t seen them around for a couple of years! Woo hoo! (I’m easily amused).
Ever go outside after dark and just sit quietly and watch what happens?
November 5th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Marti, that’s why I’m saying artists are still little kids at heart! Caterpillars, spiders, elk, horses, dogs, ant lion traps - I don’t care, it’s ALL fascinating!
November 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Just caught the “bird seed thief” and have posted his picture on my blog. Hope you all enjoy it.