Artikel Core

The Joshua Bell Experiment and Photography

A number of people were understandably strongly affected by the article linked in the previous post, and for good reason. It really raises a huge welter of various issues about art, attention, delectation, and appreciation. It cuts to something elemental about how we spend our lives, and that can be an emotional subject. There were a lot of interesting comments. Reader Michael Seltzer said: "Another thing I wondered about was the numbers. Apparently about 30 or so people actually gave money and/or stopped to listen. That's out of 1100 people total. That's about 3%. I wonder what percentage, of the total population that exists, go to see him in concert. It may be that he reached a bigger audience (percentage-wise) on the street than in the concert hall." It's an interesting issue. For years I worked for magazines, which live and die by direct mail, and in that world—for the magazine I worked for at least—3% was considered a very good return on a mailing. Two percent was adequate. About 1.5% was our cutoff point—below that, we would not rent, or mail to, a particular list again. And 4.5% was about the best we ever did (it was View Camera magazine's list, if I remember correctly). The only reason we sold the magazine on the newsstand—otherwise a zero-profit proposition—was that we got about a 4% "conversion" of newsstand buyers to subscribers, which was good. As another referent, on March 29th (just picking a day out of the hat) this blog got 11,550 hits from 8,458 unique visitors, and 32 people left comments—quite a bit worse than 3%. Of course, to be fair, I did better when I asked for comments a few days after that, in the "Please Don't Make Fun of Me, Please" post. As Joshua Bell said at the end of the article, he made about $40 an hour busking (a "busker" is defined as "a person who entertains people for money in public places, as by singing or dancing"), which would be enough for him to survive on if he had to. That seems to agree with the 3% response rate being pretty decent. <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju29BGpurrc4TpjG_QKDNQebQrD_1iV-ACMOJDwV1RpbND8fSGQKxISGum_ZFGLE2QTM0rBySDAjs3xwzjHowgA5Vv8oG7eA0p3tw2Gt80mALbaRUhHLqYSYxOTHYHyrzalwig9TkPcVo/s1600-h/joshua_bell.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5051212175091451682" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju29BGpurrc4TpjG_QKDNQebQrD_1iV-ACMOJDwV1RpbND8fSGQKxISGum_ZFGLE2QTM0rBySDAjs3xwzjHowgA5Vv8oG7eA0p3tw2Gt80mALbaRUhHLqYSYxOTHYHyrzalwig9TkPcVo/s320/joshua_bell.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>Violinist Joshua Bell </div> Another thing that wasn't discussed was that they placed him at a Metro entrance, which would seem to me to select for people who are actively en route from one place to another...many of whom could be expected to be on a schedule of some sort, especially in downtown Washington. I lived in Washington for many years, and I can tell you that, despite the popular reputation of politicians as shady and lazy or worse, Washington is full of "type A personalities" who are very task-oriented, very career-focused, and work very hard as a matter of course. I would bet money that Washingtonians work as long in a "typical" work week as people anywhere else in the country—sixty- and seventy-hour work weeks are not uncommon. The town just naturally attracts that type of person. In a more "task neutral" placement—for instance, where there are large numbers of sightseers or loiterers—he might have attracted more active listeners. And, since crowds attract crowds, putting him at a place where there was a chance of attracting the nucleus of a crowd may well have served to attract a bigger crowd. And if there had been a crowd, then the one person who recognized him could have "infected" the other bystanders with her information. "That's Joshua Bell, one of the most famous violinists in the world!" is information that would travel well amongst a tightly packed group of standing people, whereas in the experiment, only one person recognized him, and the only person close enough for her to tell was one of the producers of the piece. But if ten bystanders had surrounded her, we can assume she would have told them as well. One thing that surprised me in reading the article is my absolute certainty that I personally would have stopped to listen. Maybe it's long training, or just the fact that I'm a navel-gazer by disposition, but I know that I cannot ignore music whenever and wherever I hear it, and I habitually, even reflexively, evaluate the "offerings" of street musicians when I hear them. One reason I can tell you that is because when I hear bad music on the street, I'm often eager to get away from it! Off-topic? Maybe not Finally, although a few people may have thought that the article was "off-topic," I'm not sure it was—I think it does indeed bring up ramifications for photography. The type of photography I practice, for instance. How many times in the course of your daily life and travels do you see something interesting that you think might make a good picture? And how many of those times do you actually take the time to stop and take a few? I think most people—even many visually literate people, including skilled amateur photographers—pass by picture opportunities all the time, simply because they're doing something else—working, or making their way through a list of errands, or on their way to an appointment, or attending to their kids or spouses. Most of the time, we, just like the people who passed Joshua Bell by in the subway, can't afford to stop and indulge our hobbies at any old time—we have to schedule that activity, in between our other obligations. Indeed, I think it takes a person with a certain kind of lifestyle to be able to drop everything, grab the camera, and spend ten, twenty, or thirty minutes responding to something unforeseen that they just happened across in the course of their daily life. Very busy, heavily scheduled people just can't do that, most of the time. Consequently, I wonder how many of the people who walked past Bell with their heads down would have liked to stop and listen, but were thinking something like, "Can't stop, gotta stay focused, gotta resist temptation, gotta keep going...." I'll bet there were a few. And it's sometimes the same way with taking pictures, isn't it? Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

The Joshua Bell Experiment and Photography

A number of people were understandably strongly affected by the article linked in the previous post, and for good reason. It really raises a...

4:22 PM

Pearls Before Breakfast

By Gene Weingarten, The Washington Post He emerged from the Metro at the L'Enfant Plaza station and positioned himself against a wall beside a trash basket. By most measures, he was nondescript: a youngish white man in jeans, a long-sleeved T-shirt and a Washington Nationals baseball cap. From a small case, he removed a violin. Placing the open case at his feet, he shrewdly threw in a few dollars and pocket change as seed money, swiveled it to face pedestrian traffic, and began to play. It was 7:51 a.m. on Friday, January 12, the middle of the morning rush hour. In the next 43 minutes, as the violinist performed six classical pieces, 1,097 people passed by...Each passerby had a quick choice to make, one familiar to commuters in any urban area where the occasional street performer is part of the cityscape: Do you stop and listen? Do you hurry past with a blend of guilt and irritation, aware of your cupidity but annoyed by the unbidden demand on your time and your wallet? Do you throw in a buck, just to be polite? Does your decision change if he's really bad? What if he's really good? Do you have time for beauty? Shouldn't you? What's the moral mathematics of the moment? On that Friday in January, those private questions would be answered in an unusually public way. No one knew it, but the fiddler standing against a bare wall outside the Metro in an indoor arcade at the top of the escalators was one of the finest classical musicians in the world, playing some of the most elegant music ever written on one of the most valuable violins ever made.... <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html?hpid=topnews">READ ON</a> Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON, with thanks to Mike Sisk

Pearls Before Breakfast

By Gene Weingarten , The Washington Post He emerged from the Metro at the L'Enfant Plaza station and positioned himself against a wall b...

9:31 PM

Thanks!

Thanks!

I'm floored by the number of comments the previous post has received so far—and by your thoughtfulness, and kindliness. To put you in co...

7:27 AM

Please Don't Make Fun of Me, Please

Okay, now for just a second, pretend you're me. (No, you don't have to be a left-handed freethinking introverted artistic Socialist. Bear with me here.) Let's say you had grown up shooting black-and-white film. Even though you like digital, accept digital, and acknowledge that most of your shooting in the future will be digital, you just have this annoying nagging sentimental attachment to film that you keep wanting to indulge—as an add-on, a secondary thing, a sideline. Which of the following would you get, if you had to limit your choices to only one of these three? • A Zeiss Ikon rangefinder with a Voigtländer 35mm ƒ/2.5 PII lens. It's quiet, portable, discreet, a pleasure to use, you can use your favorite film with it, and you're very fond of the lens. On the other hand, 35mm doesn't scan all that well, and even excellently crafted prints from 35mm negs aren't seen as too terribly special out in the broad World. • A cherrywood Wista 45DXII with a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 150mm ƒ/5.6 lens. Another very pretty and distinctive camera, fun to use; a tiny little lens that's basically the best you've ever tried in any format; but of course you have to use it on a tripod and your favorite film doesn't come in this size. Then again, your scanner has a 4x5 film holder. • A Pentax 67II with an AE finder and a 105mm ƒ/2.4 lens. Kinda splits the difference. Loud, pretty bulky, but a very nice viewfinder, and it has the diopter adjustment you need to use SLRs, and you can use your favorite film with it. Plus, the bigger neg means some nice opportunities for craft-oriented printmaking. I'd love to hear any thoughtful opinions. The rest of you, don't make fun of me, please. Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Please Don't Make Fun of Me, Please

Okay, now for just a second, pretend you're me. (No, you don't have to be a left-handed freethinking introverted artistic Socialist....

10:53 AM

High-Tech Viewfinder

High-Tech Viewfinder

The Ikodot . Posted by: OREN GRAD, hat tip to Colin Jago

10:31 AM

Hippie Pinko Sparse Shooter

Maybe it's just me, but I shoot far less with digital than I ever did with film. You? I don't know why. I don't mean to. Maybe it's because it's easier to get what I want, or maybe I just know when I've gotten what I want. Maybe I enjoy using the camera less. Maybe I dislike dealing with large volumes of files on the computer, having never really worked out a competent workflow (I still treat digital casually, as though it were somehow less serious. I don't do that on purpose either—it's just the way I feel). Maybe it's that I only own one card. Maybe I have less visceral attraction to creating pictures in color than exposing yummy Tri-X. Whatever the reason, I would estimate my shooting volume with digital is 1/10th to 1/5th what it used to be with film. Of course, I'm also a left-handed freethinking introverted artistic socialist, so maybe I'm just in the minority on everything. Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Hippie Pinko Sparse Shooter

Maybe it's just me, but I shoot far less with digital than I ever did with film. You? I don't know why. I don't mean to. Maybe ...

7:01 AM

T.O.P. Ten Levels of Seriousness

T.O.P. Ten Levels of Seriousness

You know you're a serious photographer if... ( in ascending order ) 1. You own a really nice camera 2. You use your really nice camera ...

6:27 AM