args

Money wasted on art works is absurd

First, I shall attack my opponents case and his attacks, then I'll review my own case. My opponent's contention 1: Gap between manufacturing and sale value is misunderstood and no longer stands as a valid point for this debate. My opponent does not understand or realize that you don't have to be rich to be an artist. Most artists are dirt poor before they make their creations and dirt poor when they died. Famous artists like Vincent Van Gogh created amazing paintings and still never gained much wealth. You don't need to be rich to create something amazing. You don't need wealth to be talented. That's why the paintings are so valuable. These artists go through years of hard work in harsh conditions just to bring beautiful creations to the world. They should be paid a lot for their paintings for sacrificing so much for it. My opponent's contention 2: Undeserving artists is also a misunderstood point and no longer stands. First of all, your sources aren't serious concrete evidence for your debate. I'm sorry I just can take the site called caveman circus (that offers such great things like "Babes" and gifs) very seriously. I need some better evidence. My opponent did not look at this painting at a different perspective. The form of this art is called abstract expressionism. It is actually kind of a brilliant and beautiful piece of art. This painting actually does represent many things. If my opponent would have done some more research on it he would've seen the symbolism in all of the art forms. I'll send you a link of the description of what it represents. I agree with my opponent that graffiti is pretty cool. But it is not worth much and can't be sold for 3 main reasons. 1. Not always art. Most graffiti is vulgar words, male gentiles, and gang signs. 2. Against the law. Graffiti is vandalism and it is very disrespectful. 3. Can't sell it. Being that it is part of public property, someone can't just go draw on something and be like "this is my art, I would like to sell it" even if it is good or bad. You can't just take half of the building you drew on, that breaks constitutional rights. So even though graffiti is awesome, its value can't grow to the height of professional paintings because of these reasons. My opponents attacks don't affect my contentions. My opponent said " I have painted on one canvas for 3 years. It is trash since I am no artist, but the auction starts at 2 million. Pay me now." Obviously, no one would want to pay for that because they can see that it took three years to create "trash". If it took you 10 years to write a book but it has terrible grammar, do you think people would buy it? Of course not. My opponent is confused on how I said artists spend a lot of time on their art. They sacrifice all of these years to create something amazing, not "trash". The Mona Lisa has a great effect on culture. The Mona Lisa is in fact the most famous painting in the world. There are songs about it, books about it, and it influenced many other artists. It was the first of its kind. The painting uses a lot of new concepts that were never used before it. All the points of the painting are pointing towards Mona Lisa's smile. This painting is really cool because their is a lot more than meets the eye. Lots of small details that Leonardo De Vinci created. It represents the culture at the time because it shows the advancements in painting. There were many advancements in all subjects during the Renaissance period. It is a great representational object for history and culture. Sure, you could photo copy a famous painting, but that would just lower the value of the painting all together and make it nor very special anymore. It would be like if you bought a brand new XBOX. It's pretty valuable and special to you. But if someone gave you a million XBOXs then the value and respect of a XBOX goes down where you wouldn't even care if its value was damaged or not. Most works of art are donated to museums anyways. But I do agree with my opponent that all works of art should be available to the public and not in some dusty old attic. Although photo copying is more convenient, and is more accessible, it still lowers the value of the art itself. Now, I will review my own case. Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance. Contention 1: Importance. Importance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means value or significance. Art is a very valuable thing because many artists have suffered for their art. Contention 2: Contention 2: History. Art is literally a definition of a culture. Our art will be a time traveling device for people of future times. It will show our history, culture, and families. I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the the negative side of this debate.