What would happen if a great violinist played on Stradivari to unknowing commuters

[grysar]

A superb article in the Washington Post today answers that question. It was also in the Post magazine, but it's probably better here because you can watch the video as well. As for what happens? Not telling. Read the article.

(For the record, this is not the stop I commute by. I've never stopped for a busker. Maybe I should. But when I do have some cash and like their performance I do try to give 'em a dollar. There's actually a good guy in the evenings that I tend to rush by all too quickly. Next time he's here I may stick around for a song.)

Comments

[shinuhana.livejournal.com]

Great article!

I posted it on our local swing site. There is a very popular hot cat jazz band that a lot of people I know will crowd into the tiniest back room to listen too (they play for free). I really love them, but when I ran into part of the group playing just a block from my home outside the subway, I admit that even I only stopped for a minute, said hi, and dropped some money it. I think it is that whole rush hour mentality. That and it was damn cold out.

[ninjadebugger.livejournal.com]

I hate to say this, but he still did -really- well for a busker.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

No reason to hate to say it. I think the best part of the article is that it poses the question and shows some of the ways people respond. So extra insight into how people responded is a good thing.

They actually probably should have thrown a benchmark into the article. Although he did note that $32 was not bad for an hours work.

Do you have a feel for how much is average?

[ninjadebugger.livejournal.com]

All the sources I've seen say you're pretty good if you take in 10 an hour.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

So he got around triple?

I wonder how much of that was more donors rather than higher paying donors.

I'd hypothesis off this that talent has definite diminishing returns when buskings. Capping out at about three times the average rate makes sense. Now, it may well be possible to make more than 3*, but it would probably turn on showmanship and picking crowd-pleasers rather than just musical talent.

[shinuhana.livejournal.com]

I think there would have been a big difference in response if it were during the evening rush hour when people are not in such a hurry to get home. I think the demographic of the metro stop he was serving was a lot of 9-5 workers who need to be at work at a certain time, as described by the guy who only had "3 minutes to spare" to listen.

Also, since it was a pretty narrow demographic, if he played during rush hour in NYC, he probably would have fared better, since there would be more people who aren't trying to get into the office at a precise time.

He also probably would have made more money if he was playing on a platform where people are almost forced to listen for a few minutes while waiting for the train.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

In DC, playing on the platforms isn't allowed. So playing at the top of an elevator is pretty standard.

I'm sometimes in more of a rush when going home, because I'm afraid of just missing a train. When I'm walking out, the length of time to get to the office is pretty constant and my work is willing to let me get in late so long as I'm willing to stay late.

However, I'm probably irrational for being in such a hurry at night. But, on the whole, there's more buskers by my stop in the morning than in the evening. I think another part of that is that when you're leaving the station, you have to wait on the traffic lights. When you're entering there's nothing you have to wait on.

[capfox.livejournal.com]

That was, indeed, a very interesting article. I usually ignore the buskers in the metro when I actually take them, but it's often because I have no money to spare, and I don't want to listen and not give anything. Still, would I notice if there was someone really amazing playing right there? I have no idea.

I took a philosophy of the arts class in my last semester at UMD, and we discussed some of the theories of what makes something art, or what makes it beautiful. I actually didn't like Kant's definition much, which is the one they went with, but most modern art definitions say that art is only art when presented with the right intent and context. I guess the rush hour commute isn't the right context, in the end.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

Hmm.. well I normally make a point of listening, but I have money to spare.

I dunno. Kant's seems reasonable. Most pre-modern art and some modern are that just has inherent aestetic aspects that I think can be appreciated in a neutral setting. Admittedly, this is probably worse than a neutral setting. That isn't to say it would be recognized as great art, but I think it could at least be typically recognized as good. More context/training is probably required to recognize it as great.

Modern art is often divorced from aestetics which makes intent and context much more important.

I'm focusing on context here because obviously the intent of the artist was still there. The intent of the listner might not be, but I'm guessing intent refers more to the artist than the listner.

[capfox.livejournal.com]

Well, some theories argue that the intent of the audience is important, as a creator can not be intending to make art when they do it; there was a painter in the early 20th century who was sorta crazy, did a lot of etchings and carvings and little paintings, and died, but didn't see them as art. The reaction of the audience, and the context in which it was subsequently presented, made it art.

The theory that I liked the best was the Levinson one, which maintains that art is defined by either the intent or the historic context in which it is placed; the latter is taken to mean that placing something in a context which is traditionally considered art makes it art, whether it was intended to be so or not. It covers a lot, but it was the best one intellectually.

Viscerally, though, art needs to be presented in the right way, and be the right sort of object, for it to work. Here, the music wasn't in the right context, and so people didn't appreciate it, even if they would probably still agree that it was art in and of itself. Just because art is there doesn't entail appreciation of it.