This "experiment" (I would prefer to label it "exhibition") was far too limited to clearly support any particular conclusion. Too many variables to make any definitive connection between cause & effect.

That being said, however, it DOES serve to stimulate thought and introspection in the individual reader, and thus somewhat to society as a whole. That, in my opinion, is ONE of the purposes of ART. (If it's necessary to have a discussion on "what is Art", let's take that to another thread). Was there commercial sponsorship connected with this Art (both the public performance and the article)? Probably so. Does commercial sponsorship of Art reduce it's value to the public? (THAT is also a topic for another thread)

I personally think the datum that was particularly significant (or at least interesting to me) was the relatively small number of people who appeared to even acknowledge the player. Maybe not stopping to listen, maybe not paying, but at least making it apparent that they were aware of live music being performed. It's still not possible to draw a conclusion from that, but I suggest a couple of ideas to consider:

1. Those people at that time were so wrapped up in their own business (by necessity or habit) that they ignore anything in their surroundings that does not require response or action. A lesson would be to consider if YOU (editorial/generic You) do that, and whether it is a good habit for you to maintain.

2. We have become so used to music/muzak/background noise surrounding us that we don't pay much attention to "unsolicited" live music. A lesson here would be to try being more aware of all your surroundings, and to look for the beauty and art that might have been previously missed. And also to note how your surroundings are sometimes structured specifically to manipulate your feelings (there has been a lot of money paid to tailor background music in commercial spaces to invoke a desired response in visitors - getting shoppers to spend more money in the mall, for example).

To paraphrase an idea set forth in the article: How do we know it's Good Art unless it's surrounded by an impressive frame & hung in a museum? The corallary question becomes How do we know it's Good Music unless it's packaged in some standardized manner? ("We" in this case is the "general public" - aka the "great unwashed masses", not the educated, erudite, and esteemed readers of Mudcat and their ilk)

Val