What?!!  Please!!  Everything we do in existence is an or some form of ART.  Some even catagorize life as an Art form.  Movies are mostly a sit back and feel the emoitons that your looking at.  Games are a Participating (mostly)  venture to get you create your emotions threw a force imposed direction of failures and/or successes.  One art form You watch the other you interact.   The Art form of Movies are [if captured your emotions (cant wait to SEE) the next part] or with the Art form of Criticizm/Opinion save us from an unholy 2 hour hell so our emotion won't scream for REFUND or Kill the writers.  The Art form of games is quite BROADER.  Participation makes for a very (cant really decide) which emotion I'm gonna use on this game today.  Both are Art forms in that the range of emotions derived from them (like in life) make you want to stay and play and laugh and cry and ponder and empathize.   Movies, pictures, Books, Games, Food, ..... Life.  Its all meant to be enjoyed.  The pitures on the Cave wall may have been telling a story (movie).................. a story how to paly a GAME; Hunting game, fishing game, survival game.  Then someone came along and classified it as Art.

Actually, it's funny. It's not that I don't care about trumpet anymore, but since I started learning piano, guitar, and singing, the little bit of tension I still had essentially vanished. Before, my whole future seemed invested in the trumpet, and once that was gone, I was able to do that last bit of relaxing that I needed.

Well, playing softly isn't really bad for brass, it's more just an issue of playing with pressure. Any pressure damages the lips. Unfortunately just about every brass player ever uses at least a little bit of pressure. My teacher actually had his teeth punched out (funny and long story). For a year, he was trying to learn to play with dentures. Even the slightest bit of extra pressure beyond just contact with the lips would cause his dentures to crack and eventually shatter in his mouth. He was forced to find a way to play with no pressure at all. VERY few brass players can claim they do the same, even among some of the best.

I don't think there's a problem inherent in the idea of public schooling, I think there's more a problem in the home itself. Some parents really push their kids to practice, which is great and all, but some of those kids grow up hating music. Then there's the problem of false expectations where parents get their kids lessons, and expect to have little Mozarts within 3 months. It's just unrealistic. Though maybe the problem is even deeper, and is more of a society thing. As a society, we're turning more and more apathetic with each generation. If anything I think that is the biggest problem.

Yeah, some people think if you have talent, you don't have to work hard. Talent is a funny thing in general, and I'm not sure how much I believe in its existence. I've seen kids who start off and sound AWFUL and turn out to be my best students, and kids who come in who seem talented and make no progress. And I'm only talking about talent in regards to music. There are an infinite number of ways to explain something to a student. So if a elementary school teacher happens to explain some things in the perfect way for 1 or 2 students to understand, that's not talent, that's luck on their part for being with a teacher that can explain things well to them. Or, conversely, a student that has trouble with one teacher might flourish and seem talented with another. Or sometimes a student is just lucky and figures out a good/decent way to play an instrument. Still luck though.

All of our experiences go towards everything we do. The people we meet, the things we find out that we enjoy or don't at different times in our lives, classes we take, any and everything we do goes towards that. Just because some people experience what they need to be most successful doesn't necessarily mean they are gifted. They could be, but we don't know enough about genetics yet to determine something like that. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091218125110.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116094452.htm

The second one is about MET values in Wii Sports and Wii Fit. I haven't played Wii Fit Plus, but I'm not sure what they can do differently to drastically increase MET values. Out of 46 activities, only 5 are about 4 METS. But then there's a difference between walking for 30 minutes (3.3 METs if you're going at 3 miles per hour) and spending 5 minutes on an exercise that you only move 3 minutes for (all the countdowns and loading times and such). Moderate activity is 3-6 METS, and most of the exercises are below that. Not to mention, check out the first study, usage typically decreases and in application hasn't had much of an effect.

As for the brain training games, I don't know, I just don't think there's much research on either side anyways, so when that's the case, I tend to choose the less popular side =P Just my nature to stand up for the unproven underdog. But it seems the studies just show that those games help people with cognitive problems (dementia, alzhiemer's etc.), not normal people with no prolems. 

Here's Nintendo's response: "Nintendo does not make any claims that Brain Training or More Brain Training are scientifically proven to improve cognitive function."

But that's not how all artists view their own art, and it doesn't negate everything that this topic is about =P Some artists "try" to create art, as in they consciously force it thinking "I'm creating art". Others don't focus on that, and have a vision or idea or thought and try to communicate that in some way. And then there are some that don't care if they create "art" or not as long as they're doing what they want and/or love. Any of these can yield art, but the intention and methods used are very different.

To me, art is what reaches people, if art doesn't reach people, then what's the point? Or is art meant to be understood by a select few? Does that make it bad art or good art? I think what you're getting at isn't and art vs. entertainment deal, but simply different degrees in regards to the depth of the art. But even then, I don't think that's right. Or better put, "deeper" art isn't necessarily better art. Though, depth can be subjective as well, so maybe it's just that complicated, or I'm over-complicating the way I'm thinking of it =P

There is no universal definition of art that can say "This is art, and that isn't". We can debate about it forever similar to the way people debate about whether there's a universal set of morals or ethics regardless of culture or race and inherent in the truth of the world (yay Into to Ethics class). Some think that regardless of human perspective, some things are right and wrong, others disagree. There's no right answer with this or with art. But that's the fun in discussing it =) and the definitely doesn't negate things said in this topic.

@r505Matt: In Wii Fit Plus, the MET values are shown and it uses them to calculate the calories burned.

Actually, the study said the same as i did: it depends what and how you play Wii Fit (notice that they were averages on how people played it). If you want to lose weigh, you're likely not going to play the yoga games or balance games, but likely to take the aerobic excercise and/or muscle excercise.
Since you have played Wii Fit, you likely know how you can play Hula Hoops without making a big deal out of it, or exhaust yourself compleletely with it (i tend to do the latter).
Then there are the free step/free jogging that you're supposed to do while watching TV.

Wii Fit Plus added cycling, among few other things, where you can cycle around the island as long as you want to.

But, you are right, that the loading/starting/etc. times lower the effectiveness of the session.

However, only by looking at one quality we are not getting the whole picture of the advantages of Wii Fit. For example (this is pretty random, i know) the Hula Hoops in Wii Fit is the best thing ever happened to my back, even better than thaiboxing or physiotherapy.

By negating what the topic is about, i was looking at Ebert again, not what the posters posted. Ebert is talking as an authority, as someone who knows what art is, but if art is subjective, then there's no authority and nobody can say what is art and what is not - unless talking about ones personal dislikes and likes.

Looking at popular opinion among critics, art definately is something that's understood only by few and when something is made entertaining and/or popular or as business, it can't be considered as art. If you notice, Ebert actually pointed both of these out in his blog post. However, this is where i agree with him. I see art made with creativity in mind, instead of entertaining people and making money.

And, i was thinking black and white, as strictly entertainment vs. art.

I do think there are "universal ethics" to an extent, but in order to understand them, you'd need to take a class in evolution psychology instead of ethics class.

Very controversial. I don't think anyone's put it better than David Hume when he so poignantly asked how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"?

I took an evolutionary psychology class actually, but that's besides the point. Good points about "how" you play Wii Fit, makes a big difference. But, in the end, if no one's really getting fit from Wii Fit (like that 2nd linked study suggests), that says something. People who don't like to exercise, but like games, aren't going to suddenly drop 20 lbs with Wii Fit (or 10). A real lifestyle change is needed to drop weight (real exercise + diet).

I know that's the popular opinion among critics, but that is ridiculous to me. It's almost like if something is popular, it can't be regarded as art. To say that popular things can't be regarded as art is ridiculous. On the other side, and I'm not sure if you thought I was saying this (I wasn't), but just because something's popular, and moves a lot of people, (like I said was important for art) that doesn't make it art either. I think if something moves someone or people, then it can be art, regardless of popularity. Fuck the critics, we're seeing here with Ebert that they might not understand much of anything after all (even if he had 1 good point). In general, critics should stay within their realm of expertise.

And while we're on the subject of critics, and I'll talk music, if one of them thinks Mozart's Requiem is a work of art, and another doesn't, is one of them wrong? Does it take a general consensus of critics to say "Yes, it is art" or "No it is not"? Critics' opinions have no bearing on whether a work is art or not. Art is a very personal thing, and no critic can tell you whether your perspective of art is right or wrong. Granted, this is my opinion, but this is an opinion I feel VERY strongly about; as opposed to pretty strongly about like most of my other opinions =)

@JUG: Well, it's not controversial at all. Human behaviour is about the behaviour that helped you to reproduce and survive.

The only question is whether the environment have been different enough and whether enough time have passed to change the behaviour of an isolated, atlest partially, population.

Penny Arcade

@r505Matt: I agree with the critics part. They aren't doing anything more than telling their own opinion. If you look at movie reviews for example, two critics can have completely opposite opinion about a movie.

Well, the same thing that negates Wii Fit as an useful excercise, negates pretty much everything else too.
Wii Fit however is pretty easy way to excercise, it tracks how you are advancing, it's fun, it's a "personal trainer" and when you have a tight schedule, it's pretty easy to play in short bursts. It's easy to see that it's a product that fits especially well for housemoms.

Okay, I will partially concede, it can be used, and has an effect, but it is by no means an efficient method for losing weight. Agree or agree to disagree? =P