| bdbdbd said: @r505Matt: First you have to factor in the context of the topic, where Ebert apparently was making very broad generalisations - that indeed could make golf and basketball look like the same game.As for he studies about Brain Training and Wii Fit, i'm actually quite surprised you brought them up and i assume you don't own either.It's much easier to judge Wii Fit, as the achievement in the game is to get more fit (there are other stuff, such as posture too, though). If you don't get fit, you're not achieving anything. I own both of the Wii Fits and am pretty familiar with what kind of excercise you're able to get with it. Basically you could say that jogging doesn't make you fit - the only thing you need to do is to go jogging or play Wii Fit, or do them both.I wonder what Brain Training is supposed to do and how is it studied? For what i know, it's supposed to help to prevent alzheimer, and for me, it really helps to improve my memory - it was quite a surprise noticing it.The Wikipedia definition is quite good actually, and pretty close to what i have been saying it means. I do see two problems with your extention: the art definately affects the artists emotions, otherwise it wouldn't be created, and, that you turned it into purely subjective, when Wikipedia gave an objective definion, meaning in practise that art can't be defined. |
Oh, in context that makes perfect sense, I wasn't thinking of it in direct regards to Ebert's claims.
I don't own either, but I've played both for a month+ In terms of Wii Fit, there was a study done that pretty much showed that just walking outside would burn more calories. I'd link it but I don't have time to find it right now, I'll check later if I remember.
In terms of the brain training games in general, there's a very recent study (I just found it this week) saying that those games don't actually help your memory. You yourself may just be experiencing a placebo effect. And they said it's supposed to aid with dementia, but the study seemed to say that reading a book is a far more effective tool in that regard.
I would agree to saying that art cannot be objectively defined. And as an artist myself, I can relay some stories along what your saying and why I think that's not the right way to view art.
One of my teachers, great trombone player, was telling me about a gig he did a few years ago. He told me how he was trying to be as tasteful and artful in his trombone solos (jazz by the way) and the audience like it. Then for one of the songs, he just let loose, and played stuff he would consider easy or bland, and the audience LOVED it. It's easy to say that the solo that was not fulfilling for himself reached the audience far more. To me, that solo would probably be a better example of art.
Now, I don't think many share this sort of view. I read once that it's almost a badge of honor for a pop band, that normally sells well, to flop on an album, since then it might be considered more "artful". But I think connecting through people through art is important, hell it's my goal in life, so while I don't necessarily think one way or the other is right or wrong, I know this way is right for me.
Art is a subjective subject, so to me it makes sense that the very definition of art be subjective as well. Not everything is cut and dry. Take the definition or meaning of life. In this case, there is really no objective answer, but you make your own answer. I think it's okay if art gets that distinction as well since art, and the act of experiencing art, is such a personal thing, just like life itself.
