args

Brewing is an art form

So, what you are now saying is that there is "craft brewing" - which you consider art - while you fully admit that there is commercial brewing, which is not. I'm sorry, but that is a full concession of this debate. You resolution says "Brewing is an art form". You admit that brewing exists which is not an art form: "While the BMC (Bud, Miller, Coors) brewers may produce beer for money for intoxicating beverages, craft brewers do not." You even admit that "craft brewing" only account for a fraction of the market, making it the exception to the rule: "According to the Craft Brewers Association, up until last year, the maximum number of barrels allowed to be produced in order to be called a craft brewery is 2 million barrels. After Samuel Adams produced over that 2 million barrels, the number was pushed to 6 million barrels. However, this is still well under the amount of barrels produced by BMC's." So, there is a tiny fraction of beer being produced for non-profit reasons. While beer - on the broad perspective - is not brewed for any other than market reasons, without artistic intent. This clearly must lead to the conclusion that the "art" lies not with the BREWING, but a few, singled-out brewers, who try to turn brewing into a form of art, but so far have not in the least achieved that goal. You may want to counter that any form of art can be abused to create marketable products, like you might consider "writing" a form of art, while instruction booklets, political pamphlets and the like are not art. But there are many, many non-profit works of writing out there, especially since the possibility of self-publishing via Internet (commonly called "blogging") has become a mass phenomenon. But in the case of brewing, it's the other way 'round: a few select people brew for fun and claim it to be art because they don't make a profit, if I take you correctly? That alone does not make an art form. Because if that were all it needed, as I pointed out above already, ANYTHING would be a form of art, the whole debate would become trivial and pointless. For EVERY activity on this world, there will be a small minority not willing to make money from it, professing to want to improve the quality of their craft, raise interest or just do their best as opposed to commercial competitors. So, is everything art? Apparently, you don't believe so, because otherwise you would not have instigated this debate in the first place. This makes it clear that you already conceded this debate. For you further points: I would not even need to counter those now anymore, but I will address each shortly: Calling alcohol the by-product of intentional fermentation is downright silly. Beer is brewed in order to achieve alcohol. It's the very idea of fermentation. Why brew beer in the first place if the alcohol was just a by-product? Why then DRINK the stuff? Alcohol is poison, as shown above. I refuse to take this part seriously until you back it up with any source on the origins of your alleged art. For all I know, beer was discovered in Africa accidentally, when grain got infested with yeast. People didn't know that a poison had been created within and drank the stuff, becoming intoxicated. I read this in a book on the culture of the Dogon of Mali once, but this is a part I can't back up. I don't have to, anyway, because this debate is over, as stated above. Not every product of art is drunk or eaten after completion. Who eats a painting? Nobody. And you know why? It's poisonous, with lead colours and other components. If brewing was an art and alcohol a mere by-product, people would not drink beer. They would store it like old wine, never to open the bottles. Craft does not equal art. If every craft produced art, we'd be right back at the triviality of this debate. I agree that all real forms of art CAN be used in ways detrimental to society. Alcohol, however, can quite contrarily not be used for any purposes beneficial to society. That is why alcohol is forbidden in many contexts. This proves that producing a drink containing alcohol cannot be form of art. I am unfamiliar with the term "offcianatos". Are these people who drink wine in the office? Art beer fans are obviously not there for the look of beer, since it bears great likeness to fresh urine. On beer and water: "The pilgrims got the heave ho from the Mayflower because they were out of time, not out of beer." http://www.fermentarium.com... So says your own source. And just to make that clear: you say brewing was a life-saver, right? Then it wasn't ART, because now, brewing is lacking the artistic intent again. The intent was to make a drinkable beverage. Clearly not art, but purely practical. Adding a particular flavour is then all the artistic freedom allowed, see? It's like claiming that sweeping the floor is a form of art because there are so many brooms to choose from. Again, if that makes art, then this is a trivial debate: everything is art. Compare your beer prices to wines and you'll see how cheep it is. Let's take a look on an auction site: Wine: http://www.sothebys.com...={e}AUC&showPast=true&resultSections=departments%3Blocations%3Btopics&filterExtended=true&search=&keywords=&lots=&ascing=desc&orderBy=date&lowPriceEstimateUSD=&highPriceEstimateUSD=&artists=&genres=&types=&mediums=&locations=&departments={d}wine&topics=¤cy=USD&part=true&from=0&to=12&isAuthenticated=false Top price: close to 2 million Beer: Oh, none to be found! In other words: not worth auctioning. The brewer is totally out of the picture: he does the same movements every day. The craft is in the foreground. Does Jim Koch have the freedom to do something different because he's in the mood? Can he do something crazy, like a painter? No! He has to adhere to the recipe as precisely as possible. He can't go crazy like some real artist would eventually do, as I described above. I do not deny brewing having select qualities of arts. I deny brewing the status of a full-fledged art, which is the topic here I have a head, which is a quality of a dog. Does that make me a dog? Of course not! I do not care for idealistic splinter groups of guerrilla art brewers. This debate is about the act of brewing, which you claim to be a form of art of its OWN right. Which you already admitted it's not. With the introduction of the new definition "microbreweries" you have just admitted this again. There's brewing - which has qualities in common with an art - and there's "microbrewing" - to which I would willingly admit as a form of art. But not brewing as a whole, as you so boldly claimed. I took this debate because of your anniversary, hoping for a good fight. You still have time to turn this around. Make it count!