In 2007 a well-known musician wanted to organize a social experiment in order to find out about human perception, likes and priorities.
Joshua Bell went to a metro station in Washington DC and started playing the violin in the early rush hour of 8 o’clock a.m. The violinist performed six classical Bach pieces for 45 minutes and almost 1,100 people passed by, but just a few of them stopped for a couple of seconds. This small percentage was thanks to several kids who really appreciated the melody although they were interrupted by their parents.
Moreover, after the experiment, he just collected s34 dollars. This number becomes much more surprising when you know that the violin he was using costs 3,5 million dollars and that two days before he did his performance in the metro, Joshua Bell had sold out in a theatre in Boston were each seat cost an average of 100$.
After this test would you say human beings perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context or is it that we just like something due to social pressure?
Nicole Pattje
I recently heard about this news and I found it really disappointing.
ReplyDeleteI found incredible how major part of human beings is extremely superficial. Personally, I would like to say that people think that musicians or any kind of artists who perform in the metro are poor people which don´t have nothing to eat, but that totally false. This musicians and artist is just people who want to expose their feelings by means of music.
In my opinion, people are very superficial and in a way quite foolish, because they ignore a professional playing them a free song in the metro, but pay 100$ to hear the same professional playing in a theatre
It is sad to accept it, but this is totally true. Often people say, "No, I'm different", but the thing is that we all live in a similar community, and have similar actions, as every action is determined by the society. Some human beings appreciate talents as they see that others really do. However, there are others that hate being part of a same way of thinking, so prefer liking the opposite things to the social ones. So referring to Hugo's comment, humans are so superficial to the point where they might say they love something when they hate it.
ReplyDeleteSo, it is difficult for human beings to appreciate talented works in some cases, but are the artists to blame humanity? No, because they usually create pieces of work that will easily be sold, and not that work with meaning and feelings in the background.
Nevertheless, in this occasion we can gather how ungrateful society is to a truly talented musician. Furthermore, this action will bother the people that passed by as they will understand what a great opportunity they lost, and how hypocrites they are to metro-musicians and to the whole culture as well.
In my opinion, human beings actually do perceive beauty, but as Natalia commented before, many people are influenced by those around them and therefore simply act out of social pressure, without actually giving a chance to themselves to have an own personality and an individual taste for music (in this case).
ReplyDeleteBut I have to disagree with some statements detailed by Natalia and Hugo.
In my opinion, finding if there is actually a dependence between the obliviousness of people that passed by and human appreciation of beauty is slightly difficult to see (in this situation). I say this because, for example, in this circumstance people could have passed by without noticing the musician or stopping to listen to the pieces because of different possible reasons; maybe they were not paying attention to what was being played, perhaps they underestimated the quality of the pieces, or they could have been in a rush to get to work, or maybe they were listening to their own music… Therefore, the reasons for not listening to the melody may not have been hypocrisy (and by this I’m not saying that people are not hypocritical in society) or people actually not appreciating beauty.
Whatever reason it was, I think that more than half the people that passed by didn’t stop to listen because they were simply too submerged in their daily routines. Yes, some of them would simply think that someone playing in the metro has no talent and therefore the quality of the melody is consequently forced to be low. But as a matter of fact, I think that the problem of this experiment is the scenario (the metro) chosen for it, as in my opinion it is not the most adequate because when people want to get the metro they are in a rush and therefore have no time to stop and listen to those playing there.
In fact I think that a better place to have done this would actually have been inside the moving metro itself, where people are sat and actually have time to listen truly to what is being played. Or maybe in a bar, where people listen and have the time to judge whether they actually like the pieces played by the unknown musician. In this situation, the results would really tell us if people actually went to listen to Joshua Bell because of his popularity or because they actually enjoyed his music.
I can see why Natalia and Hugo wrote what they wrote, and they actually have a point, but thinking deeper about it I think that the experiment was not completely well done in order to see if the obliviousness of people in the metro actually had something to do with them knowing how to appreciate beauty.
Ana Adán
I was immediately interested by this experiment the Washington post carried out when I first read it; I thought it was an excellent idea and technique to evaluate the awareness and play around with human perception.
ReplyDeleteMy impression on it has remained the same and so therefore I don’t really understand some people’s points of view towards it, for instance, Ana Adán said that a better place to have carried out the experiment would have been inside the train, well, if that were so, the whole aim of the experiment wouldn’t be achieved as the people in the train are far more aware of their surroundings than at the entrance because not only are they still, but in silence and usually not asleep so a man playing the violin will definitely catch their attention whereas in the entrance, the aim is fully achieved as we are able to determine how many people, regardless of their hurry, noise or any other form of distraction, are capable of perceiving beauty. There is also a comment about the reason being it to do with musical tastes, personally, I believe regardless of your music taste, “one of the most intricate pieces ever written” as described by the Washington post, can be recognized as beauty by anyone, so this is no excuse.
So now I question myself, if we humans are capable of letting such a talent, a beauty, pass unnoticed right under our eyes, how much other beauty is being lost, going unnoticed to us every day, every minute of our lives?
Lucas Drobnitzky
I understand the experiment but it sounds pretty stereotypical. Is this experiment trying to differentiate between the classes of society? Look at the big picture. Those whom perceive beauty have time money or interest. Beauty is immeasurable. Everyone measures beauty in different ways. Does everyone perceive music as a necessity or interest? Is music part of everyone's life? In regards to this experiment, should everyone consider violin masterpiece as part of their musical entertainment? Try experiment with vocalist instead of violinist, I'm sure there will be more observers. Each person holds different interest in beauty.
ReplyDeleteSomething else I found slightly distasteful about the article, is that while on the surface it is supposed to be about values, it comes as across
as being rather materialistic in outlook. The article is packed full of references to money; the amounts that people donated, the price of concert
tickets to hear the guy in a proper venue, the fiscal worth of his violin etc.
They know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.
What's the point of telling us that the violin is worth 3.5 million dollars, except to try and impress us that therefore the experience of listening
to it must have some kind of value? Is a violin worth 3.5 million dollars supposed to produce a sound that is in some objective sense 3500 times
better than the sound produced by a 1000 dollar violin? Highly doubtful.
I also object to the abuse of the term "experiment". What hypothesis are we trying to falsify here? What controls were performed, such as repeating
the experiment during the evening rush hour, when the station is equally busy, but the people are under time-pressure and stress?
Also note that small children don't have to deal with time or responsibility and are generally curious about everything.
They'll stop to look at a homeless guy, a couple fighting, a hole in the wall,
or anything that's basically different, because they are curious.
Just because the children wanted to stop, it didn't necessarily have anything to do with appreciation of the beauty.
My whole point here is as Ana said, that people on the DC metro are trying to get somewhere and have very little time to 'appreciate' the art delivered to them. Music is not instant gratification. It takes some patience and even a great deal of focus to 'get' music. I don't think these people on the subway are idiots, and I don't think we fail to see beauty. I just think that we're sometimes in too much of a hurry to be looking in the right places. But I also agree that above all this we could slow down just one second and take a look at what we are missing.
Andrea D-V
Last week I saw this new on television and I think is amazing how Joshua Belt could go to the station to play his music with and instrument of 3,5 million dollars.Although what surprises me even more is that of the 1100 people that went through there no one realized that what they had on front of them was one of the best musician players.I agree with Hugo that this is another example of how superficial the human being is.
ReplyDeleteHowever it's understandable that maybe half of the people that could saw Joshua they were maybe rushing, with the telephone etc.
In conclusion I don't think is a so amazing that people didn't notice that was Josuas, a great musician, because when you are in the station you don't have time for stopping and contemplating.
Nowadays music is played everywhere. Not just music, but all kind of arts such as paintings or dances. We see paintings both in the street (graffiti) and at museums and we also see people dancing in the street such as in “El Portal de l’Angel” where they entertain the people.
ReplyDeleteSome of the most talented artists are found in the street because the ones who really feel passionate about it may have not had good luck and haven’t found a suitable job before or can’t pay for lessons. There are many movies about girls who dance in the street and finally have a great life due to their incredible skills. I’m not saying that the ones who take classes are less passionate but they might have had it easier as they have a good basis. This isn’t right or wrong, it’s just as I see it. Some have had more chances than others but in the end, your talent is what defines you.
In this case, Joshua Bell was in the Washington Post experiment, where he was in the metro station during rush hour and only seven people stopped and took notice of him! The repertory he was playing was the one which he played only the night before, so it wasn’t different. This is a clear example where if you have recognition, such as playing in a good theatre and a reputation, people pay for seeing you and it might even cost 100$ a seat! Whereas playing the same exact repertory and without anyone knowing who he is, he didn’t have any kind of reward. This is what most musicians feel in the street, as most people don’t take any notice of them and just walk by without turning their heads. I am proud to say that I am not one of these, when I hear the music I always look at the artist so that they feel that their music is good and most of the time, it is!
This is what really ashames me of the citizens and if the music is good, it doesn’t mind the cost of the violin or who is playing that instrument.
I would like to start by saying that reality is different in every one of us. This happens because we perceive the world in distinct ways. We get different feelings from the same things, for instance a film or music. To me a classical music can be beautiful and relaxing but the person sitting next to me can perceive it as boring and somnolent. That is why we all have tastes and interests.
ReplyDeleteSome people have similar tastes and interests and this may be the reason why they get on very well. Friends share interests, couples share interests but if you look closely you will see that they slightly differ and that is why their reality is not completely the same.
What I am getting to is that the concept of beauty is a different in every one of us. Therefore, one cannot say something is beautiful but beautiful to him. Another thing is that something has a tendency to be liked by the majority of humans which is what we confuse with beauty. This is for example, paintings by Picasso which are recognized as exquisite by nearly everyone.
My point is that maybe what the man was playing was beautiful, but beautiful to whom? Over the total population, who is interested in classical music played by a violin? It is certainly a very small percentage and the chance of one of those people who would have paid for listening to it, passing by was very small. So I have to agree with Andrea that making the experiment with something more popular would be a lot more interesting. This way we could see if people really stopped to hear something most of them like.
I can’t criticize anyone for not stopping as I am sure I would have done the same. My interests are not in this kind of music and furthermore I cannot distinguish between the quality of the violin and how it is played. I think most of us share this as very few of us are experts in violins.
In conclusion, saying that we don’t appreciate beauty is false as beauty varies from person to person and one will only appreciate what is beautiful to him.
I agree with Jordi about the fact that not stopping to listen to Joshua Bell's music doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't appreciate beauty. Nowadays, people are not usually in to classic music, so it's not surprising that few actually stopped to listen. Moreover, those who do apreciate this kind of music aren't to be found in the metro station.
ReplyDeleteHaving mentioned this, it is also quite funny that people had payed 100 dollars each to listen to him the night before, and when he played in the subways he only was given 34 dollars in total. In my opinion, this is because some people just payed for this concert because it is a socially accepted activity, not as listening to music in the subways.
On the other hand, Joshua Bell probably new what would happen; i mean, why else would he choose such a transitional and busy place to play his music, and at 8 o'clock? I myself would have probably passed by.
Matías Puig