We don't need to support or encourage entertainment as it has a natural tendency of flourishing like weeds.
Art, on the other hand, needs careful cultivation, like a precious garden.
The classical music world hurts for appropriate, responsible, intelligent, and critical mass commentary. It should contribute to a secondary and informed memory in the minds of the audience as well as formulate an expectation to future listeners.
Information given to us by witnesses can eventually override the actual experience. It is thus critical to receive an educated and sincere opinion, which will form a foundation for future experiences.
The trend to ever younger and better-looking interpreters of classical music is questionable – would we really want to read a book by a "dazzling and successful pop icon" author? What would such a person have to say? It needs more than physical and expressive talent to communicate with a cultivated audience. Think of the old masters. A powerful acrobat or athlete with polished steel style is something else, but that's certainly not what Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, and Berg were all about. Neither were Rachmaninoff, Cortot, Schnabel, Rubinstein, Richter, or Gould.
"If you read a negative review and find it to be truthful, bite the sour apple, think about it, twist it around your mustache. But be upset about it?
Anton Rubinstein (1829-1894), Autobiographical stories
Not the quest to unravel the mystery of the numinous "what" with the tools and traditions of the divine animal that we are,
but the quest to reveal the reality of the mundane "how" with the tools and traditions of thought of its time.
Maybe, as Duchamp and Picasso (not entirely without expressed sarcasm) responded to the demand of their time and culture with a toilet seat and two women with one nose, one should respond to the demand of our time - the fiscal engine of today's market - with a superficial imitation of romantic virtuoso playing with lots of ecstatic faces, glorious movements, and attractive press photos ~ that seems to sell.
Originality, quality, and vision of an artist had to be discovered and appreciated through his works, as face time was much less of a reality (especially with historical figures). We knew the greats of the arts by their works and deeds and not by their pr. In today's media hysteria we believe we know something about a person once their image appears in the press, on the screen, MTV, or Facebook. But all of these appearances are born of public relations marketing schemes and tell us nothing real or true about the actual person or their creations. The media of the information age, or better data abundance desert, is detrimental to the intricate and intimate message of high art. Twitter works fabulously for revolutions but for art it's too twitchy. Today an image for the image's (and sales number’s) sake can be artificially crafted – unlike the actual art itself – and it is what it is (it is so, how it is) because the medium is the message. Consider the "new face of classical music".
What does the largely ignored performance of the wonderful Joshua Bell at a subway station mean? Just that, nothing else, there is no metaphor. To expose classical art as elitist and in need of humanist education and particular environment is to state the obvious.