args

Mark Rothko's art is valid and genius.

Thanks to my opponent for the quick rebuttal. ----- "Rothko's fame is intrinsically a testament to his genius as a painter; maybe I could go with the monetary value of his paintings, speaking that since they are worth very large sums of money they must be valuable and genius." ----- Not necessarily true at all. People like all sorts of different things. Apparently a lot of people like colourful rectangles? This doesn't make them ingenious. I'm glad that Mr Rothko found a following, but we mustn't forget that Carrot Top has a pretty hefty one too. It says nothing of the work's ingenuity, ingenuity being defined in my first post. ----- "My opponent has stated repeatedly that his nephew has created works "just like" Rothko's. While I highly doubt that his nephew had access to oil paints and a fine canvas, that is beside the point; my opponent has argued that because of his ability to create a similar work his nephew's talent is comparable and equivalent to Rothko's. Now many people can produce fakes, a Swiss collector Ernst Beyeler called a fake Rothko from Queens a "sublime unknown masterwork" in 2005 and hung it in his namesake museum. The reproducibility has little to nothing to do with the People like all sorts of different things. Apparently a lot of people like colourful rectangles? This doesn't make them ingenious. I'm glad that Mr Rothko found a following, but we mustn't forget that Carrot Top has a pretty hefty one too. It says nothing of the work's ingenuity, ingenuity being defined in my first post. ----- "My opponent has stated repeatedly that his nephew has created works "just like" Rothko's. While I highly doubt that his nephew had access to oil paints and a fine canvas, that is beside the point; my opponent has argued that because of his ability to create a similar work his nephew's talent is comparable and equivalent to Rothko's. Now many people can produce fakes, a Swiss collector Ernst Beyeler called a fake Rothko from Queens a "sublime unknown masterwork" in 2005 and hung it in his namesake museum. The reproducibility has little to nothing to do with the art's value as a whole." ----- Absolutely agree. However, my nephew did not "reproduce" the work, he created it himself. Or some damn similar stuff anyway. Seemingly without even trying. He presumably doesn't even know who Mark Rothko is, but he can nevertheless paint just like him! It's uncanny, really. Would you think a novelist was a genius if he produced work which was difficult to distinguish from work routinely submitted to kindergarten teachers? Would you think a chef was a genius if your four-year-old brother routinely made food just as exquisite in appearance and taste? ----- "This could not be farther from the truth, as his works have been honored in many forms, including a six Tony award winning play (including best play) titled "Red." I have seen people brought to tears by his works and while my personal testimony holds little weight, the fact that hundreds of thousands of people visit and admire his works each year definitely does." ----- Yeah art people are weird like that. People within the "circle" would never be able to admit to other art folk that all they saw when they looked at his work was a bunch of colourful rectangles. They'd be shot! They are bound by their own and their kind's overwhelming need to feel and appear superior to the layman. A good example being my opponent being unable to resist calling my opinion "ignorant". I'm not ignorant of art, I don't think it's possible to be. If you have to go to University to understand why a particular style of art is good, good it almost certainly ain't. You don't learn why it's good, you learn why you are supposed to think it's good. Regarding the emotion these paintings are supposed to incite in me, well, I have seen people brought to tears by Oprah talking absolute rubbish. People are weird, and some more than others. Some are just cry-babies. Presumably either the person you saw crying over one of these paintings was a cry-baby, or was on the depressive stream of their bi-polar disorder. There is nothing to cry about with these paintings. ----- "To say that the art is not genius is to state a personal opinion. While your opinion is ignorant and unpopular it is your right to hold it. I would advise caution expressing it in the future, as a spot on your refrigerator may be worth eighty million dollars to someone else." ----- I hope my opponent realizes that to say that the art is ingenious is also a personal opinion. I have a feeling that he does not. There is no objective measure for art, we are supposed to take it as we see it. I see colourful rectangles, which is far less ignorant when you consider that they are precisely, literally just that. I haven't been to an art school, but I do have a decent set of 20/20 eyes and the wherewithal to comprehend the messages they're relaying. And no, my nephew's paintings would not be worth $80m to anybody, because the art world have not yet been told that he is a genius and that they are to revere him. But when they get that message, his paintings are gonna go gang-busters! He has also failed to commit suicide thus far, so we can expect a lot more adoration for my brother's fridge when that happens. Thanks PRO, I'll leave it there. Art is for everybody, not just snobby art school graduates who have memorized the things they're supposed to like. Cheers.