pearls before breakfast

I think one of the main things the author argues in Pearls is that of Music. Not just music, but good music. Bell is an incredible artist, even a work of art, but a work of art in the wring place without a frame is just art - not a masterpiece. This essay takes on a Kant-like epistemological point of view: is good music inherently good, or does it need to be perceived as good by the listener to be good? Bell talked about the validation he got for performing for thousands of dollars per minute in front of hundreds of paying ticket-holders. When he was taken out of that glorious setting and transplanted into a cold and dark subway station with sad clothes and an empty case, all the controlled variables for the concert hall are gone (no captive audience, no attention, no name recognition, no acoustics, nothing.) He's playing the same pieces with the same grandeur as he would play in Carnegie Hall, but without a frame, the artwork hangs alone. People rush by without any idea what kind of talent they're passing up. Bell was hoping that even against the odds of people rushing by to get to government jobs or get home, beauty would transcend needs.