On the Topic of "Vegging Out" in front of the television:

There seems to be a running current through a lot of the comments on this subject which hints that most of us do not agree with the premise that medium determines worth. I am especially averse to that assumption. From the beginning known history, Art has followed technology. The Orators of the Homeric Age were Artists in their grand retelling of the Iliad from memory. After the spread of the written, Shakespeare and other poets and writers used the new medium to convey their creative and imaginative ideas. The mere use of a different medium, has never historically been a test of the validity or worth of art. Whether in music, fashion, theater, or newer forms of multimedia, artists have always found ways to use new mediums to create art. People like Spielberg and Scorcese can create works of art that rival the greatness of Shakespeare. They should not be penalized by their use of a different medium.

So, while i accept that much of what is on television is probably rotting our minds, it should not be assumed that everything on a TV or DVD is inherently worthless.

I have to Agree with Dan Butrymowicz in believing that shows and movies can create intellectually stimulating experiences. Although i was not a film major, i did study theater in high school and college. As a result, I believe that there are a number of extraordinary movies and shows out there that are artistically written and skillfully performed in a way as to make the audience think and actively interact with the material.

-- OluwafemiMorohunfola - 19 Jan 2008

-- JosephMacias - 19 Jan 2008

I don't currently own a television, because I thought that it would be a distraction in my first year of law school. However, I think I will get a TV soon, because I still am "vegging out" after school by mindless web browsing about obscure topics, and this seems less useful than watching the History Channel, Discovery, or even CNN. In addition, watching video on the web is totally unrewarding, as most web episodes or entertain to be found online usually runs 1-3 minutes. At least TV tries to stretch a person's attention span for 30-60 minutes.

HBO I miss you!

-Joey

-- JosephMacias - 19 Jan 2008

Oh. One more thing. I think Holmes only thought that logic was a human fragility with regards to applying logic to the law. He simply was asserting that there is no empirical truth in the law the same way that there is an empirical truth in psychics and mathematics. He wasn't attacking logic per se.

-- JosephMacias - 19 Jan 2008

I could not agree more with the other Adam. Personally, it does not get better then "survivor man" on the Discovery Channel or "explorer" on Nat Geo. I believe that what one intends to do with the medium is truly indicative of what result you will derive from engaging the medium. The fact of it is: if stranded in the desert I would know how to purify my urine for drinking (bear grylls cannot do this and Shakespear would probably die of thirst).

I want to raise a point that I believe has not been raised so far. What of beneficial vegging in its purest form, i.e. turning off the brain for a little. As anyone who has taken, or at this school anyone who has taught, a standardized test prep course knows, a fundamental instruction is "don't do anything" the day before the test. Professor Dorf instructed his Civ Pro class to go to the movies the night before his exam with, I suppose, the connotation of turning off the brain regarding any and all law thinking. Furthermore, what do we as a class make of the omnipresent possibility of active thinking burn-out?

I think there is something to pure vegging out. I agree that as lawyers we should be constantly honing our mental acuity, but I believe a little vegging here and there is a positive thing for my net work product here at law school.

-- AdamGold? - 19 Jan 2008

My guess, Steve, and I really think you are on to something, is that is why Eban talked about meditation. While he mentioned "reading" Shakespeare, I have a feeling that a line would be drawn somewhere in his theory when the audience stops being an active, thinking participant and becomes a mindless consumer, or worse, a mindless nothing.

But, the slope is slippery. Reading Shakespeare, good for the memory. Reading Kant, also good. What about Tom Clancey?

I think this gets to Daniel's point about it isn't so much what medium (print, audio, visual, etc.), but what you do with that medium. The only way this is not the case is if there is something inherently different about watching something on a screen that is distinct from seeing it in person, hearing it, or reading the words. If I don't want to "veg out," but do want to laugh, can I read the script from The Simpsons?

-- AdamCarlis - 19 Jan 2008

On the Topic of “Vegging Out”: Does the Medium Matter?

Many people of a certain social class or educational background loudly proclaim that one must read Shakespeare and see it preformed on stage. I sincerely doubt that that anyone would try to argue that Shakespeare necessarily loses its artistic or intellectual value when produced for the small screen. If a television production of a Shakespeare play can have value, why can’t other productions designed for the small screen?

Television is a medium for the masses and bashing television is an easy way for an individual to declare that he or she is better than the masses. Staring at a painting on a wall or listening to Beethoven can be a way of “vegging out” or a way of stimulating one’s mind.

MOMA is designed to make you buy postcards and memberships. Operas are preformed to induce you to buy tickets. Saying that television is a commercialized medium of expression designed to make you buy things does nothing more than force us to ask what medium of expression has not been commercialized.

Every medium for expression is what the artist and the consumer make of it.

-- StephenClarke - 19 Jan 2008