art in context
Apr. 8th, 2007 12:05 amFirst, go read this article, about an experiment the Washington Post conducted on the D.C. Metro.
No, really -- go read it. The entire thing, if you can, and watch the video clips. There's some good stuff in there. Not just the incident they staged, but the variety of things they learned from it.
Have you done that? Okay. Then come inside the cut. I want to discuss this, but not out in the open, where people will be tempted to read my comments before they've read the article.
First off, props to Joshua Bell for being willing to conduct an experiment like that -- and with his actual Strad, no less. (I wouldn't have faulted him in the slightest if he'd borrowed some lesser instrument for the less-than-ideal environment.) And he seems to have a good attitude about it; instead of getting in a snit about the way he was ignored, he shifts perspectives to see how a whole dollar becomes a high compliment, how even snaring someone's attention for a few seconds is an accomplishment.
It makes me sad that we have so few street musicians in the U.S., compared with Europe. We just don't appreciate them. And I'm as guilty as anyone else, sometimes; I get annoyed with the racket from time to time, though on other occasions the presence of a musician can brighten my day. (Could brighten my day, I should say; we're generally lacking in buskers, in this town, so I'm mostly generalizing off my experiences in Boston and New York.)
But the thing I mainly want to talk about is the notion of art in context. I watched the video clips, and frankly? The music Bell's playing isn't the kind of thing I'd be likely to stop and listen to. Yes, he's a fabulous violinist, and yes, his instrument is a priceless treasure . . . but the music doesn't belong there. It's music you appreciate more the more you understand it, the more you have the leisure to pay attention to it and capture all of its nuances. Right now, iTunes is playing Lisa Gerrard singing "The Wind That Shakes the Barley." I would be more likely to stop in the subway and listen to her than to Bell. Why? Because I know the song -- the pleasure of familiarity. It has lyrics that tell a story -- the pleasure of narrative. It's simple in its evocativeness in a way that Bach's "Chaconne" isn't.
And that's where some of the quotes in the article verge on irritating me. The unspoken idea behind some of the praise for the music seems to be, this is great art, therefore it should be great art anywhere. And I'm not sure if I agree with that. I think I'm more sympathetic to the idea that art of any kind derives some of its quality from context. If you play "Chaconne" for an audience that understands its structure, the conventions of its genre, and the subtleties of violin technique, and you do so in an environment where the acoustics complement the performance, and everyone involved is in the right state of mind for the event, then it might deserve the praise that's heaped on it. But if you play it for an audience that hasn't heard the piece before, isn't familiar with the genre, and can just barely recognize a violin on sight, in an acoustically odd environment where everybody's on their way somewhere else . . . .
It's a question, I suppose, of purpose. If your purpose is to attract the attention of commuters and give them a moment of musical beauty, I think you could pick better music than "Chaconne" (and everything else Bell played). In that context, maybe Lisa Gerrard singing "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" would be the better piece of art.
To the WaPo's credit, though, I don't think their article is intended as a slam on the commuters for being philistines who don't appreciate Bell playing Bach. (Some people may walk away with that conclusion, and those people, I would disagree with.) I think it's meant to be a lament for how focused, isolated, and over-busy those commuters (and the rest of us) are, that we can't take the time to stop for music, or even to notice that it's there. And I can agree with that, wholeheartedly.
That's why, even when I used to find myself irritated at an overly-loud busker, even when said busker was maybe not all that good, I was generally glad to see him there. I was glad someone was making music for the public, bringing a little spot of color into the world.
No, really -- go read it. The entire thing, if you can, and watch the video clips. There's some good stuff in there. Not just the incident they staged, but the variety of things they learned from it.
Have you done that? Okay. Then come inside the cut. I want to discuss this, but not out in the open, where people will be tempted to read my comments before they've read the article.
First off, props to Joshua Bell for being willing to conduct an experiment like that -- and with his actual Strad, no less. (I wouldn't have faulted him in the slightest if he'd borrowed some lesser instrument for the less-than-ideal environment.) And he seems to have a good attitude about it; instead of getting in a snit about the way he was ignored, he shifts perspectives to see how a whole dollar becomes a high compliment, how even snaring someone's attention for a few seconds is an accomplishment.
It makes me sad that we have so few street musicians in the U.S., compared with Europe. We just don't appreciate them. And I'm as guilty as anyone else, sometimes; I get annoyed with the racket from time to time, though on other occasions the presence of a musician can brighten my day. (Could brighten my day, I should say; we're generally lacking in buskers, in this town, so I'm mostly generalizing off my experiences in Boston and New York.)
But the thing I mainly want to talk about is the notion of art in context. I watched the video clips, and frankly? The music Bell's playing isn't the kind of thing I'd be likely to stop and listen to. Yes, he's a fabulous violinist, and yes, his instrument is a priceless treasure . . . but the music doesn't belong there. It's music you appreciate more the more you understand it, the more you have the leisure to pay attention to it and capture all of its nuances. Right now, iTunes is playing Lisa Gerrard singing "The Wind That Shakes the Barley." I would be more likely to stop in the subway and listen to her than to Bell. Why? Because I know the song -- the pleasure of familiarity. It has lyrics that tell a story -- the pleasure of narrative. It's simple in its evocativeness in a way that Bach's "Chaconne" isn't.
And that's where some of the quotes in the article verge on irritating me. The unspoken idea behind some of the praise for the music seems to be, this is great art, therefore it should be great art anywhere. And I'm not sure if I agree with that. I think I'm more sympathetic to the idea that art of any kind derives some of its quality from context. If you play "Chaconne" for an audience that understands its structure, the conventions of its genre, and the subtleties of violin technique, and you do so in an environment where the acoustics complement the performance, and everyone involved is in the right state of mind for the event, then it might deserve the praise that's heaped on it. But if you play it for an audience that hasn't heard the piece before, isn't familiar with the genre, and can just barely recognize a violin on sight, in an acoustically odd environment where everybody's on their way somewhere else . . . .
It's a question, I suppose, of purpose. If your purpose is to attract the attention of commuters and give them a moment of musical beauty, I think you could pick better music than "Chaconne" (and everything else Bell played). In that context, maybe Lisa Gerrard singing "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" would be the better piece of art.
To the WaPo's credit, though, I don't think their article is intended as a slam on the commuters for being philistines who don't appreciate Bell playing Bach. (Some people may walk away with that conclusion, and those people, I would disagree with.) I think it's meant to be a lament for how focused, isolated, and over-busy those commuters (and the rest of us) are, that we can't take the time to stop for music, or even to notice that it's there. And I can agree with that, wholeheartedly.
That's why, even when I used to find myself irritated at an overly-loud busker, even when said busker was maybe not all that good, I was generally glad to see him there. I was glad someone was making music for the public, bringing a little spot of color into the world.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 04:47 am (UTC)So, yeah, I agree. :) A good experiment, but, perhaps, a bit ill-suited to the performance environment.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 07:56 pm (UTC)The sad thing is how hard it is to break through that shell.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 05:03 am (UTC)He made £4.90.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 05:27 am (UTC)Had Bell done his experiment outside, even outside of a metro station, I bet there would have been a much larger crowd. Just because of the psychogeogrpahy -- a metro station is a busy hurrying place, walk fast, get in line, hurry up and wait.
The results would have also been markedly different, I think, if he'd been playing on a subway platform or the like, some place where people are already stationary, but not necessarily paying attention to anyone. This is more a question of the dynamics of how attention is apportioned out and the ways that people set themselves into patterns than any failing of musical appreciation, and also more relevant than the type of music played (though I still think something pop-y would have drawn much more attention--like they say in the article, familiar songs would get people's attention. But that's part of the whole thing. You go from one pattern (commute!) to momentarily revolve around a different pattern (hey I know this song).
I agree we need more buskers in life. I always love it when the bagpipe players play down by the Sample Gates.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 05:39 am (UTC)Now I desperately want to listen to Partita III, but I've only got a copy from Evangelion and I do not like the way it ends. Gives me the creeps, it does.
But I digress.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 05:57 am (UTC)Okay.
Is that a moving work of striking beauty, an object of true genius?
Okay, how about this . The Wall at the Scholar's Inn Bakehouse East makes the comment that comparing a kettle boiled bagel to a frozen bagel is like comparing a ferrari to a picture of a ferrari. Assuming that 1:15 of a 12 minute piece is even the most moving 1:15, the piece is simply incomplete.
In Beethoven's 9th, there are 2 minutes that I can listen to over and over out of a CD length piece, but those are only meaningful in the context of the rest of the piece.
I feel that there was a bit of journalistic ho-hummery. A bit of "how uncultured we are" I don't think it was the main point, but I don't think that the criticism focusing on the lack of attention paid is a valid one due to the selective nature of the 'experiment'.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 07:36 am (UTC)I do think it makes sense that several of the people who stopped to listen are musicians.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 06:58 am (UTC)I've worked with renaissance faires since I first started college, so I've a little bit of experience with what it takes to gather a crowd of strangers and keep them interested in whatever you're doing. The basic technique seems to go: Find a good place to stand where you're tangent to the traffic, but you're not in the way and you have room to gather a crowd, if you do get one. Try to gather a starter group using a 'hook' (a bit of your act that's neat, simple, and interesting), and by acknowledging in some way (smile, nod) any people who do stop and come over. Once you have 4-5 unrelated people standing around you, the simple fact that people are stopped will gather more people, and you can move on to doing more complex bits of your act assured that your audience will pay sufficient attention to appreciate them.
...but for this they had him stand in a place where his little audience, when they did form towards the end, was at risk of getting run over by people. ...and it seemed like he didn't acknowledge the folks that did gather (why would he if he's used to performing on a stage?). and... well, more philosophical issues of context aside... complex classical music pieces are, in general, meant to be heard from the beginning all the way through to the end, in an environtment that's quiet enough so you can hear them clearly. If they just wanted to see what happened when they took the music outside the concert hall, it'd be better to play for the waiting area at the BMV.
Meanwhile, I wonder what would have happened here if he'd had less variables set against him? ... a better place to stand, a bit of busker-training, and a few light simple pieces to serve as hooks, and maybe he'd have gotten more of the attention he deserved. (shrugs)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 08:07 pm (UTC)Assuming, of course, that he wasn't a success. As I say elsewhere in comments, he might have done very well by busker standards.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 09:50 am (UTC)She interprates the situation differently, basically saying to be noticed as a busker you need more than just to be a good or even a great musician.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 11:19 am (UTC)Otoh, the article said that some real buskers do choose that location. I wonder how much they make, and what kind of music they play.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 08:11 pm (UTC)(Plus, the more often they do it, the more likely their results are to become tainted; people might find out it's going on.)
Your latter point is one I've mentioned in other replies here. How does he compare against your average busker? It would be interesting to know.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 09:46 am (UTC)Yes, to make a real experiment wouldn't have been practical -- so I'm uncomfortable that this was presented as an experiment. And even within these limits -- one hour, no long walks -- there could have been some variation in location. It's like they set it up as a worst case.
In a way I'm glad that most of the commuters didn't register what was going on. To realize that they were being offered a special experience -- at the cost of losing their jobs! -- would have been very sad.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 12:50 pm (UTC)The piece saddened me on many levels because of the one phrase I issue more then any other. "A little confirmation never hurts." Well, in this case, it did hurt. Ever since watching Koyaanisqatsi at the ripe age of 19 such a thing has always saddened me since it caused me to be more aware and sensitive of how easily the human animal puts its head down and locks itself away from the world around it. We've all done it and it seems that its more easier to do with each generation.
It has become so epidemic that we have to train ourselves NOT to do it.
The young coyote in me wants to say, "Those poor bastards..." and the old man coyote in me says, "How can we fix this?" But we all know what happened the LAST time Coyote tried to help out his buddy, the walking ape...
There is one section that brought tears to my eyes as I read it to my wife and I am surprised that no one has commented on it. Of course, not many of you have children. I'm referencing the section where children were the strongest and only demographic which attempted to stop and listen only to be hustled away by their parents. Children. Children who did not know Joshua Bell from Taco Bell, don't know know classical music, Kant, proper experiments of perception, Chaconne, Lisa Gerrard, Stradivari, the best way to busk, or lottery tickets. Children, I am sure, who would have acted that way if it was Joshua Bell, BB King, R. Carlos Nakai, or even a nameless busker playing a penny flute or guitar.
And, as much as this story reminded me of "A little confirmation never hurts," it also reminded me of my other favorite quote, this time from a comic writer I adore, Christopher Moore.
"Children see magic because they look for it."
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 08:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 02:12 pm (UTC)Whatever your take on the stature of classical music, the sound is undeniably musical, and Bell's movements certainly demonstrate an engagement with his performance. You might not recognize the music, but I think most people would recognize that he's good.
If we want to show it off to best effect, sure, put him in a concert hall and silence their cell phones. But I interpreted this as a piece about our responsibility to step outside those bubbles and bring ourselves to the table, to engage with what's being offered rather than to expect it to come all the way to engage us.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 08:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 09:57 am (UTC)That makes sense. To have put him in a park at sunset, where people are out to stroll and listen and donate regardless of the quality of the music, would have slanted results the other way.
Hm, for something further outside the bubbles, you might find a location where the musician was on one side of an opaque fence or hedge, doing his busking thing for busy people -- but the music could be heard on the other side too, without the social 'busker bubble' effect.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 03:24 pm (UTC)I agree with the assessments of the articles tastefulness, the incompleteness of the experiment, etc.
I've never been a busker, but I've been a rush hour commuter. When it was 8 AM and I was in a hurry to get to school, and I'd slept in as late as I possibly could and still make it on time, but even so I'd only gotten 5 hours of sleep, and if I missed the next train I WOULD be late, and that would go on my permanent record, I still had time for music. This was every day, pretty much, when I was in high school. But I wasn't stopping to listen to buskers, that I didn't have time for. I had head phones. My CD player was, at that point, approaching 10 years old; it skipped every time the train jostled, but that was where my music was coming from. If some dude was standing in the station, I'd ignore him unless he was actually inside on the platform, because if he was on the platform I could wait for the train and listen at the same time - otherwise, I would risk missing the train if I listened to him. If a guy was actually on the train, likewise, I'd listen. I'd try to give some change or a buck, if I had any money. I think a lot of commuters were a lot like me - in a hurry, frazzled, and unable (not unwilling - jobs are too hard to come by for this to be a matter of willingness) to risk being late.
I mean, I love music, of all kinds, and I would probably pay to see Bell, if it was in my price range, and I still wouldn't have even considered stopping. I might have - might have - if I'd recognized him, but even then, you can't go in to work and say "I was late because of a famous person on the train" - it doesn't really make it, ya know? :)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 03:40 pm (UTC)Plus, Joshua Bell is a genius. However, he is lucky to have educated parents who lived in the town with one of the best music schools in the world. Otherwise, well, he wouldn't be Josh Bell. Nature and nurture came together. Thank goodness. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 07:20 pm (UTC)If they had put up a big banner over his head that read, "Joshua Bell!" I'm pretty sure a lot more people would have stopped to listen, just because it was Joshua Bell, rather than some other random-yet-talented musician - even if they weren't captured by the music, itself.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 10:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 12:34 am (UTC)The overall tone of the article bugged me a bit, not least the choice of music because the pieces were art regardless of where they were performed. I'd rather listen to a talented violinist playing something I know, or at least something catchy with a beat. Schubert's Ave Maria is not that. A lot of great classical (and by this I mean fancy concert) music is only great to people who have learned to appreciate it, much like wine or expensive chocolate.
I wanted to remind the writers that classical music was not played continuously from its composition to today. It was popular, written for money, written for fame, same as all the other pieces that aren't played in Carnegie Hall or the subway, same as all the songs we'd recognize.
I'm not done thinking about it yet, though.