Can art be only recognized by its context or are you able to identify it in any circumstance? I am asking you this because Paul from Austria, that comes often to my blog, raised this question last week quoting an experience that the Washington post made with the violinist Joshua Bell in the subway in Washington D.C.
You can read the story here.
I am looking forward to your opinion.
{ 163 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
What if Joshua Bell had played in a park? What if he had played on the streets of Brighton?
I find very good musicians on the street in Brighton. That is why I hate programmes like X-Factor as they peddle crap to the masses.
And yes, people do stop and listen.
Once, it was late, it was dark, it was getting cold, and I found this guy playing a guitar on the Brighton seafront, no one about. He was incredible. Then a girl walked by, she sat and listened. I was then at risk of missing a train. I apologised for leaving.
Another time, I found a guy sitting in a doorway just off Leicester Square in London. He only had to hit a couple of chords to appreciate how good he was. I hunkered down and joined him He was quite delighted to be appreciated.
A couple of days ago I stumbled across Shadowboxer, live sessions at Surrey University and studio sessions. I could not believe how good they were.
Carly Bryant is someone I found playing in The Lanes in Brighton. I sat on the curb entranced.
Yes, context is a factor, but not all.
We have complete and utter crap masquerading as art. Critics say it is good. A case of the Emperor’s Clothes. If outside the context we would dismiss it for what it is, rubbish. But no one dare say so, because it has been put on a pedestal as Art.
Celebrity is confused as a synonym for talent.
We have a semi-literate writer winning the Booker Prize. Judges complaining of writing being too simple. Paulo Coelho dismissed by critics for his simplicity, unable to perceive simplicity as elegance.
Is not the art of writing being able to communicate? If we cannot communicate we cannot write.
Never make the mistake of confusing simple writing with bad writing or incomprehensible writing with good writing.
The good scientist is the one who is able to communicate ideas, not make unintelligible and thus appear intelligent because we are made to feel unintelligent for failing to comprehend.
http://keithpp.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/joshua-bell-busking-on-the-washington-metro/
Is this as simple as context, as the Washington Post would have us believe? It was 7am in the morning, people on their way to work. My God, what time do they get up!
How many people on their way to work are going to stop for anything?
I avoid London rush hour, but on the rare occasions I have got caught up in it it is like being swept along by a crowd of zombies, all with blank expressions on their faces.
What if Joshua Bell had played in a park? What if he had played on the streets of Brighton?
While I believe that Context plays a role in how we view art, I do not believe that it is all that makes art.
I found this article to be extremely moving, just listening to the short versions of the pieces being played gave me a feeling of joy. Great article.
Does Context Make Art? Context is a statement that surrounds a particular word or statement that determine it’s meaning the circumstances in which an event occurs: a setting. Context does not make art it is only the part of a statement that surrounds a word it describes a setting but when describing art art is not only the setting in which the artisit describes the artist alo creates the emotion , the period on which the form of art was created and it’s history nd background so context does not make at in my opinion
I hear people ask what is art? But what is context? The physical, social and cultural background or setting of a work of art. Therefore, context is apart of art but doesn’t make it art. In my opinion, anything that makes someone feel something is art; rather it be music, a structure, sculpture or painting. In this situation, it seems as these people don’t recognize or acknowledge the beautiful piece being played. But, I assure they took notice, they just didn’t react. Society has become so focused on their employment and finances;there’s no time or desire to enjoy art. In other words they are just trying to get to work. They have been program to become to numb to the simply things in life.
Art is appreciated when it finds resonance in the listener’s/watcher’s soul. Or it should. I don’t believe that art should be commercialized, that people should be told what to admire and appreciate. Nobody should be forced to like what they don’t understand.
The truth is that our souls provide the context and we show appreciation only when we understand the art of the moment in that context.
Thus, only context results in appreciation and understanding. And this is how it should be if art is to retain its transcendental purpose.
The children understood the violinist’s music because it found resonance in their souls — iambic meter and all.
I think that this story just points again to the fact that we do not always see the art that’s in front of us. His craft was not appreciated there in the subway with those white collar working people that may not be as exposed to classical music as it would have been with the upper-class people that frequent the orchestras. Either way the music was beautiful, and it’s sad that we do not always stop and take a moment to appreciate true beauty.
one does not require an audience to determine whether its an art or not.. its d creativity of art that captivates audience… i beleive.. Context is formed out of ART and not the vice versa
Dear Paulo,
Yes, I believe too, that without context there is nothing. There is no meaning to nothing. It is only the audience that makes one an artist, for I could otherwise argue (without being able to prove it, I must add) that there are countless talented people out there, whose veritable genius we will never know ~ because their talent has not found an audience.
That was beautiful! I liked this part in the article best:
“Even at this accelerated pace, though, the fiddler’s movements remain fluid and graceful; he seems so apart from his audience — unseen, unheard, otherworldly — that you find yourself thinking that he’s not really there. A ghost.
Only then do you see it: He is the one who is real. They are the ghosts”.
I think this is a perfect example where money making capitalism leads us.
Lovely article and experiment, love it!
← Previous Comments