args

Picture Art is no longer a job.

Today this house is here debating on the notion of whether picture art (which I will now refer to simply as artists) is a job or not. To outline, I will first discuss a general flaw in the opponent's view of the status quo, Follow by refuting his three contentions, And finally construct my own points. First, The general flaw present in my opponent's argument is a serious misunderstanding of the status quo. In his three reasons, He talks about "deep meaning" in art, And how commissions have been lost to "fetishes and porn". However, This generalization applies only to a very small portion of commissioned art and the occupation of artists as a whole. If the proposition cannot properly widen the scope of the debate, The opposition believes this is an extreme harm to their case. My opponent's first contention talks about there being no reason to buy art, Explaining that art with deep meaning is dead in light of image sharing via the internet. However, This is simply not true for two reasons. The first reason is that In his three reasons, He talks about "deep meaning" in art, And how commissions have been lost to "fetishes and porn". However, This generalization applies only to a very small portion of commissioned art and the occupation of artists as a whole. If the proposition cannot properly widen the scope of the debate, The opposition believes this is an extreme harm to their case. My opponent's first contention talks about there being no reason to buy art, Explaining that art with deep meaning is dead in light of image sharing via the internet. However, This is simply not true for two reasons. The first reason is that art is sold for more reasons than appreciation talent or discovery of deep meaning. The world of commissions is not just fetish requests on Deviantart as my opponent incorrectly assumes. People buy art to decorate their homes, Design their websites, And see their ideas in reality. Almost all marketing teams utilize professional artists to present their product in an appealing way. The second reason is that even if we were to assume people only buy art for "deep meaning", It is incorrect to say that deep meaning has been lost in art today. It is often argued that the meaning of a piece of artwork is left to the viewer, And as long as there is a healthy supply and demand for art (as it is in the stauts quo), Art can serve as a feasible profession. My opponent's second contention talks about lack of interest. However, As with the first contention, I request that my opponent again reexamine the status quo. People still buy art, And to blindly ignore this fact is a major detriment to my opponent's case. My opponent's third contention talks about originality. Again, He points to the internet and shows how many of the art pieces on these sites are fan art. Two things for this. One, The opponent yet again shows failure to see the true scope of this debate, Focusing on a few select sites to attack the profession of artists as a whole. Two, Even if the art on these sites are based off preexisting characters, Is not each piece of art the creator's original work? The time, Research, And artistic method the creator took to reinterpret a character are all qualifiers for an original piece of work. Or are we to assume that all art concepts are to be original? If that were true, Anyone who has drawn a tree would be considered "unoriginal", And we wouldn't have the concept of artistic movements. This contention falls. Now that I've rebutted my opponent's three claims, I will move onto my own. Due to time constraints I will be brief in my contentions. 1. There is still a huge audience for art. This contention is a simple analysis of the status quo. The Art Market in 2018 reported a 12% increase in total art sales after a small dip last year. Clearly, People are still appreciating and buying art. 2. The profession is changing and evolving. Ever since the advent of computers and the internet, Art has evolved to encompass what we now call graphic design. A sign of a healthy profession is one that manages to remain relevant in an ever-changing world. In place of painters, We now see website designers. In place of sketchers, We see muralists. Picture art takes many forms, And to claim that the entire industry as a whole is not a feasible source of income is to ignore how art has evolved to adopt to modern societies' needs. 3. An artist is well paid for his work. Commission artists often charge for materials as well as by the hour. By working in this way, The artist gets the same pay as any other worker. In addition, For long term projects/collaborations, Such as professional artists working with corporations to aid in marketing, Reimbursement also comes through meals, Products that the corporation manufactures, And sometimes even housing. There is a reason why companies recognize the importance of creative professionals and why they're paid to reflect this importance, And opposition requests the proposition to be made aware of this. To conclude, Because the proposition has taken a very limited scope to attack this issue, It has resulted in three weakly supported contentions which I have rebutted. On the comparative, The opposition has provided solid evidence as well as taken a more balanced approach and view to this topic, Which is why the opposition must win this debate.