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

[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.