beauty vs. society

My recent issue of The Week had a really interesting article in the back. It was about an "experiment" of sorts put on by the Washington Post to study people's behavior and appreciation of beauty. The results weren't too surprising, even if they weren't a bit alarming. I think the experiment would have gone much "better" under different circumstances, but I'll get into that later.

Here's the deal. The Post set up a violinist at the exit of the L'Enfant Plaza Metro stop in D.C. during morning rush hour. (For those of you who don't know D.C., that's right downtown, in the middle of the federal district, and an intersection of several train lines. It's one of the most hoppin' stops in the system.) He stayed for 43 minutes and just played. You know, like all those drum guys and trumpeters and stuff always do in any city's downtown. Just some young, normal-looking white guy in plain clothes and a Nationals cap playing to whoever would listen -- and, hopefully, throw some money in his open case.

At least that's what people could see and know. What they didn't know is that the Post had set up several hidden cameras to capture the situation. What they also didn't know is the guy they walked within a few feet of was Joshua Bell, one of the world's best violinists, playing some of the hardest pieces ever written, on a $3.5 million Stradivarius. As if to emphasize how wild this really is, I'd actually heard of Joshua Bell before I read the article. Here's a guy who always sells out concert halls around the world, playing for free in a crowded Metro station. And not just playing, but performing some serious violin stuff and also some popular music, like Ave Maria and others, that even I would recognize.

The author presents the choices at hand for each commuter passing by:

Do you hurry past, annoyed by the unbidden demand on your time and your wallet? Do you throw in a buck, just to be polite? Do you stop and listen? Do you have time for beauty? Shouldn't you?

So...what did people do?

For starters, 1,097 of them passed by him. Of those, 1,070, or 97.5%, scurried by on their way to their next appointment in life, apparently unaware that they had just passed within a few feet of greatness, a few at least glancing up to acknowledge him. The other 27 gave money, mostly on the run. But there was never any applause, dialogue, or other communication with Bell above and beyond simple eye contact and facial expressions. A few stopped to listen, but there was never a crowd.

First off, this obviously points out a few things about society. For one, people don't recognize great classical music when they hear it -- not that we didn't know this already. Again using myself as an example, I'll admit that I would have walked up and had no idea what I was hearing. I think I'd have stopped -- really -- but because the guy was clearly a good violin player and there's just something enjoyable about watching and listening to a really great musician do his thing, not because I recognized much of what I was hearing. But clearly people didn't realize what they were seeing and hearing here, or more of them would have put their jobs or other commitments on hold and stopped to take in the music.

In light of this, however, it isn't fair to say people wouldn't stop for any great music. They just have to know it's great. So the response points out much more about people's frantic pace of life and lack of "culture"* than it does about people's priorities each day. (Pace of life affects priorities but I'll get to that.) For example, picture some electric guitar player standing out there playing some Hendrix or Van Halen. Folks are gonna stop to listen that because they'd immediately recognize it as good (to them) music that's hard to play. Or better yet, imagine Bono, or Carrie Underwood or Jennifer Lopez, just casually showing up and belting out some hits. There would be a crowd in no time. The city would have to shut down that station because it'd become too choked up to serve its function. Joshua Bell is on the same level of popularity or reknown in his genre as these others, it's just that he plays a style that's much lesser known and followed. If he was popular in the cultural mainstream then people absolutely would have crowded around.

Another thing it shows is that people are simply too rooted in their routine or too enslaven to the clock to pause for something different. Even if they don't know who's playing or what's being played, why wouldn't more just stop briefly to listen? It's safe to say that was an unusually amazing performance by any standards, much less in a Metro station, and that the musician had enough obvious talent that most people could tell he was more than your average novice out there panhandling with noise. I would think such a thing would at least make people curious if nothing else. But apparently not curious enough to jolt them out of their routine.

There's also something ironic about all of this. How many of those passersby would pay good money to go to a concert hall (and sit much more than a few feet away) and listen to the same guy perform? Do they really know what they're paying for or listening to? Or do they think it's great and worthy of their time just because it's supposed to be? If there was a sign that said "Joshua Bell, Grammy-winning and world-reknown violinist" in that station, and maybe some rope or tape or something set up around him to make him look important, how many more people would stop? If, on top of that, there was a collection tin for some charitable cause, how many people would pitch money in just because they know who and what they're listening to? My point here is that people will often "like" something or appreciate it just because they know that's the culturally acceptable and proper, and maybe expected, thing to do. That doesn't mean they actually do like it, know why they think they like it or are supposed to like it, or even have the faintest idea what it is.

There are so many follow-up experiments that could be run in light of this one. The one I'd most love to see is a concert advertised and a concert hall filled up, only to have some local music student go out there and try his hand at some pieces that weren't even on the brochure (I'm sure there's a fancy name for the thing, similar to "playbill," but I don't know what it is). Some would notice, but I bet a lot wouldn't. And if nobody clued them in on the joke -- if those who picked up on the trick acted the part anyway -- then the ignorant would give standing ovations and rave about it afterward as if they'd just seen some awesome performance. And yes, I'd be one of the ignorant ones.

Perhaps the greatest lesson to be taken from the experiment, though, is the effect of our lifestyle on our appreciation for simple things like beauty and joy. Something the article touches on in passing, but I think is profound enough to warrant more discussion, is the idea that people lose their appreciation for simple things over time. Quoth the author:

There was no ethnic or demographic pattern to distinguish the people who stayed to watch Bell, or the ones who gave money, from that vast majority who hurried on past, unheeding... But the behavior of one demographic remained absolutely consistent. Every single time a child walked past, he or she tried to stop and watch. And every single time, a parent scooted the kid away.

This speaks volumes. It can just be brushed aside as kids not having commitments and adults having stuff to do, as if they both wanted to stay but the parents had too many other things lined up. The children picked up on something the adults didn't. For example, it has been pointed out before that most people's development of their creative ability and appreciation with respect to visual art ceases at a very young age, usually in elementary school. We're all born with some appreciation of art and some knowledge of what beauty really is. But somewhere along the line that gets tossed aside or lost.

Children, though, haven't yet been caught up in the rat race. They haven't mastered the art of filling up their lives with tasks and meetings and errands and social events and other things to inflate their feelings of self-importance. They haven't learned the tremendous virtues of living a busy lifestyle. As far as they're concerned, free time is still free, and they always have time to just take in whatever they come across. And so, without a thousand other things crowded in their head, they can grasp things most older folks aren't even capable of understanding.

Look at it this way. As life becomes faster-paced and priorities we think are more important start filling up free time that might otherwise be used to slow down and relax, we begin to lose our concept of simpler things, like beauty, and our appreciation of them. That sort of thing requires a certain state of mind, one that allows time for us to take in what isn't immediately noticeable. But if we're always in a hurry or always setting our mental energy toward whatever is next on our plate instead of just letting it rest idle from time to time, then we never allow ourselves to notice anything except what we're already trying to pay attention to and whatever gets in the way of that. And thus smaller things that aren't scheduled into our lives, but are probably more important than anything that is, get ignored.

It's not hard to see the greater trend of this in society. It not only affects art but recreation, family time, and pretty much anything else that gets relegated to the domain of "free time," to be pursued whenever our list of all-important commitments and responsibilities is finally completed. One could say that's a necessity of modern life, especially in a society like ours, and in some ways they'd be right. Sure, we gain some things that way, but what do we lose?

-----
* I don't like using that term for such things because it seems to carry that snobbish, high-class air of superiority with it. It's the kind of word I imagine uppity stiffs using to demonstrate their higher plane of existence over others who are somehow worse people because they don't know or understand the interests of the snobs. It's kinda like talking to those people who act like you must be of some lesser intelligence or musical taste if you don't listen to the music they listen to or like the bands they like. Drives me up the wall. But, unfortunately, I can't think of another word to use.