Both Basketball and Golf are both sports, that's something they have in common. They both use balls, though with different sizes. They have both have sets of rules for their games, and have equipment necessary to play the game. And actually, if the 2 share a concept, such as the concept of point-scoring, that means they do have something in common. Since you're relying on a lot of semantics, I shall too =)

With the new "Brain training games are useless" and "Wii Fit won't actually make you fit" studies, I don't think the "achievement in the game effects your real life" has much merit. In the case with the Wii Fit, yeah it's "better than nothing" but that doesn't mean it actually has an impact on your life.

I think I missed your previous post about this whole rules thing, so I'll look it up, but I'm not sure what rules of a medium have to do with art? Art is hard to define, but the definition I like the Wikipedia definition: Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. Though to extrapolate, I'd like to say that art MUST affect emotions to be art, senses are merely a part of the medium or device to elicit those emotions. So when you see a painting, or hear a piece of music, and you are moved, then for you, that particular piece is art. So I'm not sure how rules would work into that. As I said, I'll look for your previous post because I really want to understand what you're getting at. After lunch break though =)

Also, it occurs to me that, to some degree, we are using "art" in this case in a way that does not hold with the public understanding of the word, which is part of why this is causing such a furor.

The way we are using "art" might be more popularly referred to as "fine art," which betrays several false assumptions in Ebert's (and our own) language usage. I think that, to a degree, part of the problem here might be a lack of communication.

@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.

Sorry about the above. Apparently my browser doesn't work as i expected.

Yeah I think so.

Well with film, or storytelling in general, I'm sure you're aware that the beginning and end are usually very related.  The very beginning should introduce every element of the ending in a good story, so nothing comes out of the blue in a deus ex machina moment.  In most games the first thing you do is talk to some NPC to learn about the story, and then the last thing you do in the game is blow up a giant monster.  I think Super Mario Bros. is brilliant in that the first and last thing you do in the entire game is a single jump with a simple tap of the A button.  There's no intro, you just start jumping, and the climax is just the coolest jump ever.

I figure if "interactive art" is indeed an art form, then we need to focus on the unique features of that art form.  The interactivity is what separates a movie-game from a movie or a music-game from some music.  And in discussing the interactivity, a game's ability to elicit effort is very important.  It's also what holds games back in a way though.  If you're bored with a movie or an album you can let it keep playing and only pay half as much attention, but if you're bored with a game you can't set it to auto-play.  If you stop caring about a game, you're just going to turn it off and never play it again.

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.

Just depends on how you use the word "art". I certainly wouldn't call every game art, just as I wouldn't call every movie that either.

To me, games are just their own art form. Back in 1980 when I first saw Pac Man in the arcades, I knew a new form of interactve entertainment was inevitable. Then when Super Mario Bros hit, and later, Zelda, it was official in my mind. The very design of these games could be considered art.

There are inarguably artistic endeavors within video games, however. And his argument that people making choices in games as opposed to everyone being exposed to the same general presentation is flawed in my opinion; not everyone interprets a painting the very same way, even if they're all looking at the very same thing. He says you can win a game but you experience a film, story,etc. You also experience a game. A video game is every bit as much of a presented form of entertainment as a movie. Just because a movie is not interactive doesn't mean it's somehow more artistic than a game.

@r505Matt: Well, the effectiveness of walking depends on your speed and walking has quite high MET value (a little above 3, if i recall). So it depends on what and how you play with Wii Fit (i'd remember highest MET in Wii Fit Plus being 4,5 or 5), since most of the excercises are in the same range with walking.
The point is, that whether you get fit with it or not, depends completely on will you use it.

Case with Brain Training can't be placebo effect, because i didn't expect anything like that to happen or didn't even have a clue my memory could be improved. I bought the game after trying it because it was damn good.

I just read the topic about the study and noticed that it wasn't played daily.
I can't say anything about that study on my part, because the weekly doze in the study was closer to my daily doze (when i play the game, haven't been playing it in a while).
I'd remember reading out loud was one of the best ways to train your brain - according to Brain Training manual.

I personally don't have a problem with art being subjective. Though, that kind of negates pretty much everything what the topic is about.
I would put art as non-entertainment and non-business, made for the sake of creativity.

The trombone example was something i would say an artist becoming an entertainer.

Video games are interactive art for gamers. This movie critic simply doesn't understand that playing a game is a part of the art itself because video games are unlike anything else.