An experiment in beauty

Can we all agree that beauty is a subjective thing? If so...don't get in a tiff if I keep walking. What else is subjective? Calling something a masterpiece? I'd say so. The author is implying, or rather, flat out saying that because people didn't stop to listen or even drop some money into his case in appreciation, that we as a society have someone been diminshed by our day to day rush. How well...stupid. I'm guessing the author has no idea how the people passing by could have been affected by just hearing the music and walking by...carrying it in their heads at the start of a busy day. This could go on and on...my main point actually is that most people in the western world have this belief that "classical" music is something to be appreciated above all else...as if it exists on a whole other plain. "Classical" music is nothing more than a distilled for of art music - a dead form mostly - of European origins. I may be biased however....I just hate articles like this "experiment".

Originally Posted by j

Click to expand...

I saw a guy playing violin in downtown Seattle a month ago or so, and he was really, really good. He wasn't all dressed up or anything, but there were still quite a few people standing around listening to it. I probably would have done the same, at least for a while, but I was on my motorcycle, stopped at the traffic light. It's hard to say what was going on in those videos, but I'd like to think that not everyone is like that.

And to those walking by with their iPod earplugs protecting them from the random virtuoso on the street, well, you got what you deserved.

No, you will never hear someone like Joshua Bell play on the street. He makes $50,000 a concert minimum, so besides a little social experiment, you'd never get to see it.

Well, like the art curator said, it was out of context. Most people are on their way to work. Do you really expect them to stop and listen?

great article, and an even more interesting experiment.

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

Click to expand...

i just read the beginning of the article and i think the whole premise is over analyzing a bit. regardless of how talented the musician is, most people simply do not like classical music.

The article is about beauty.

Originally Posted by gdc_2008

Click to expand...

Can we all agree that beauty is a subjective thing?

No.

Beauty is beauty . It's not relative.
There may be some skill in sensing it, but it's not in the eye of the beholder.

The best part of the article is about the kids wanting to listen.

I didn't like that article's playschool dissertation of Kant, et al. beyond calling his book by the wrong title.

I promise that, when I am in a subway again, I will take a second look when the musicians are playing. I hope that I would have noticed...at least the beautiful music.

On a different note, I once saw Glenn Gould on a street in Toronto. I knew it was him as he was all bundled up, scarf, coat, etc... and the temperature was near 90.

And, in a grocery store outside of Philadelphia, I once saw Eugene Ormandy and his wife, Greta, standing in line to buy a loaf of bread.

A previous post mentioned "context" and this is very important. Even in the Gospels, we read that the disciples did not recognize Jesus after the Resurrection. Unless we see the person, or the object of beauty--music, art, we might not recognize it outside of the expected setting or circumstance.

Of course, Alan Funt did this kind of thing all the time in "Candid Camera"--often putting famous people on the street who went unrecognized.

Originally Posted by caelte

Click to expand...

The article is about beauty.



No.

Beauty is beauty . It's not relative.
There may be some skill in sensing it, but it's not in the eye of the beholder.

The best part of the article is about the kids wanting to listen.

You're being facetious right? Beauty is absolutely in the ear of the behearer.

Originally Posted by gdc_2008

Click to expand...

You're being facetious right? Beauty is absolutely in the ear of the behearer.

Ya but just like with clothes, some people have bad taste. If we're talking about music, there's beauty, there's noise, and there's the crap in between. I've loved Nine Inch Nails since I was a teen, but I'm not gonna rate Trent Reznor on the same scale as Tchaikovsky. NiN is great music that servers a particular purpose for me, but I wouldn't call it beautiful in the same sense as I refer to Rach 3 or the Intermezzo from Cavalleria Rusticana.

Originally Posted by gdc_2008

Click to expand...

You're being facetious right? Beauty is absolutely in the ear of the behearer.

No.
Beauty exists on it's own, it isn't determined, just quantified as beauty by the observer. Beauty isn't an opinion.

So you think it's like the sound of the tree falling in the woods with no one to hear?
The woods are full of people to hear the event. The event is beauty. They all hear and see something different, or maybe nothing at all. Ask them about it and you get Roshamon.

Beauty only exists when you sense it's occurence?

Originally Posted by Bona Drag

Click to expand...

Jesus H. Can we, along with the stooge who wrote this story, get over ourselves, please? I think this post does a good job of summing up just how ridiculous the article is:

http://www.salon.com/ent/audiofile/2...cal/index.html

What was the point? That not many people enjoy or appreciate classical music? I could have told you that without all the tut-tutting.

QFT (although I couldn't read the Salon article)

Originally Posted by caelte

Click to expand...

No.
Beauty exists on it's own, it isn't determined, just quantified as beauty by the observer. Beauty isn't an opinion.

So you think it's like the sound of the tree falling in the woods with no one to hear?
The woods are full of people to hear the event. The event is beauty. They all hear and see something different, or maybe nothing at all. Ask them about it and you get Roshamon.

Beauty only exists when you sense it's occurence?

I agree.

This is a philosophical position on esthetics.

I’m reminded of the line from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. Jon.

An interesting read but the whole premise falls apart when you try and analyse the situation too much. It is rather condescending in a way.

Originally Posted by Violinist

Click to expand...

No, you will never hear someone like Joshua Bell play on the street. He makes $50,000 a concert minimum, so besides a little social experiment, you'd never get to see it.

Remind me where I said it was someone like Bell. I said it was a guy who was really, really good, as in, much better than you'd expect of some borderline-homeless guy who stands outside playing for passersby.

Well, like the art curator said, it was out of context. Most people are on their way to work. Do you really expect them to stop and listen?

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking as well. It's hard to tell from the video, but it doesn't seem like it was a very good place to set him up either. If he had been, say, down on the platform where people were going to be waiting a few minutes anyway, I'm sure many more people would have spent that time paying attention to it.

As for the Salon article, I can't get to it (how do they keep the doors open, anyway?) but while the article may have overdone it on the analysis, it does raise a point that you either get, or you don't. And it doesn't seem like there's much sense in trying to explain it.

Originally Posted by chobochobo

Click to expand...

An interesting read but the whole premise falls apart when you try and analyse the situation too much. It is rather condescending in a way.

You mean because the prols on their way to work are such oafs for not noticing greatness in their midst?

It reeks of elitist bs, it's one of the main reasons the article is so interesting.

It's not just about people who can't hear the music, it's also about upper class slumming on the other side of the tracks.