args

Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art

Traditional art is expensive My opponent's first point is that traditional art is expensive while digital art is more cost efficient, therefore the two form are equal. However, something being less expensive does not make it better when speaking of quality. Therefore this argument should have no bearing on the resolution. Traditional art is limiting My opponent's next claim is that because it is easier to fix screw ups with digital art then it is for traditional art, the two forms are equal. This point might be useful if the resolution was that it is easier to make digital art. But the easier it is to produce something, the lower the quality will be. The quality of something which took me a minute to make will of course be less then the quality of something that was worked on painstakingly for months. Just because it is hard to make a piece of traditional art does not mean that digital art is on par with it. Traditional art being hard to make just forces the artist to become more skillful and careful in producing the Traditional art is limiting My opponent's next claim is that because it is easier to fix screw ups with digital art then it is for traditional art, the two forms are equal. This point might be useful if the resolution was that it is easier to make digital art. But the easier it is to produce something, the lower the quality will be. The quality of something which took me a minute to make will of course be less then the quality of something that was worked on painstakingly for months. Just because it is hard to make a piece of traditional art does not mean that digital art is on par with it. Traditional art being hard to make just forces the artist to become more skillful and careful in producing the art. Digital art is cheap This point is just a reitterating of my opponent's first point that traditional art is expensive to create. I will negate this contention like I did the first. We are debating on whether or not digital art is a lesser form of traditional art. Price should not come into the question of quality. Digital art can emulate traditional technique. My opponent's next claim is that digital art can be made to look like traditional art. This does not being on par as far as quality goes, just like a counterfeit dollar bill is not worth the same as a real dollar bill. Digital art is difficult to master My opponent now claims that digital art is difficult to create. However this contradicts one of his points in which he states that traditional art is too limiting in that it is harder to fix mistakes made when creating a traditional art work. Either it is easier or more difficult to create digital art. My opponent cannot keep both positions.

Graffiti is art

Thanks for accepting. Now for rebuttals: 1. "I think that if you want to do art, you should do it so it looks nice." Art does not have to "look nice". Art can be seen in many ways, looks don't matter. If I precisely drew an ugly person to represent that everyone is beautiful no matter what looks, it would still be art wouldn't it? 2. " Graffiti on walls or doors or trucks or wherever is not art. You are kind of ruining the thing if you draw graffiti. " Destruction can also be seen as art. Art is very vague, so it is seen in many different ways. Let em elaborate. Take "The art of war", a book written by a man of the name Sun Tzu. War brings destruction, yet there is an art to it. Same for graffiti, though you are ruining a wall, you are skilfully creating art, under the pressure of being caught. There is an art in that! 3. "Graffiti is usually letters put together." No way! Graffiti is usually pictures, images, and sometimes letters. And if you didn't know, when you put letters together, it is called a "word". Say it with me now, "word". And even if it is mostly words, writing is an art. They are sharing codes, words, on a wall. There is an art to that. They are painting their stories onto a wall. 4. " I'm trying to say that art is something that makes you feel good inside. " Well as I said earlier, war is an art. Does war make you feel good inside? Art does not need to make you feel good? Also there are horror movies, that scare people. It is an art of creating movies. But do these movies make you feel good and happy and safe inside? 5. "Art, on the other hand, makes you feel like you should admire the work and stay. " Some art is boring, or to tedious to understand. But it is still art. Now that I rendered all my opponent's points invalid, I would like to continue with my arguments. Before we can even begin to explain how graffiti is art, we need to understand definitions. Graffiti: "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place:" [1] Art: " the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" [2] So art is expression, application, creativity! And what do street artist do? (other word for graffiti artist). They apply their skills, expression and creativity onto a huge illegal canvas. This is still art, but just not as respected. Also, it is called graffiti art for a reason. Art is literally in the name! So basically, I just want to explain how anything can be art, graffiti included. Though some art is more respected than others, it doesn't mean the others are not art. Graffiti is an art, involving skill, and knowledge. "Where can I put graffiti without getting caught? What message of logo or picture do I wan't to express?" These are questions that echo through the minds of graffiti artist. They create art that is not accepted, but it is still art. Art that is hard to create, but still as amazing as the ones that society accepts. 1.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Back to you con!

Graffiti is art

Thanks for the response. Rebuttals: I. You are not humiliating them, and either way it is art. It is a drawing that involved creativity, therefore an art. II. Graffiti is used to express yourself in a world where your art is not accepted. War brought violence, though it is not illegal, it was worst. What is worst? Killing thousands, or drawing something on a wall you don't own? III. Destruction can be art. If it applies creativity and expression, according to the definition we used, destruction is art. IV: I said " Art does not need to make you feel good" which is why I brought up the horror movies. Basically, it is art even if it is unwanted. V: Where does it say illegal things aren't arts? Tell me where? According to the definition we used, graffiti is art. The ethics behind it have nothing to do with it. Let us say for example a person drew a painting against Islam. It would be illegal because it would insult Muslims, but does that make it not art any more? VI: You said it shouldn't be considered art. That is not the debate. The debate is whether it is art or not, not whether it should be art not. So this point kinda has nothing to do with the debate. I am basically trying to express how anything can be art, regardless of the ethics. Going against the law is an amazing thing that takes courage. Having courage is an art. Graffiti is an art, no matter how much you dislike it.

Modern Art

Definitions Because Pro does not provide definitions, I will provide universal definitions. Art-the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Modern Art-the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Modern art is the same but during the period from the 1860s to present. Attacks The drawings the Pro give us are also modernabstractart. http://www.newsweek.com... These are also modern art. Modern Art can include structures and 3-D art as well. Gillian Wearing and Marjetica Potrc are famous modern artists. Also, its like a song. Art contains a hidden meaning like some songs do. Another great part about modern art are the ways you can interpret them. Just because you can't feel them doesn't mean they are pointless. Video games are art, but no type of art can be the real art. Art is expressing yourself in your own creative way. Thank you!

Graffiti is art

Great points of view. But you are thinking to literally, you also need to think metaphorically to resolve this argument. Rebuttals: "Vandalism is willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. (http://dictionary.reference.com......) So. you are destroying art, not creating art." Think of graffiti like photoshop. Sometimes, you find a picture, or art and you change it completely. You edit things, change the lighting and more. Sometime you change a picture completely, as if to change it to your perspective. Graffiti can be like this. Imagine a piece of art. You may see it as something beautiful and majestic, however a person may possibly see it as potential. They change it with things like scribbles, and words. It is not exactly destroying the painting, but actually changing it. Though some may just to graffiti randomly on this painting, it can still be considered art. Now here are more arguments explaining how graffiti is art. Firstly, anything can be art. It all depends on how someone perceives it. For example, you may see graffiti and vandalism, but someone else may see art that is forbidden, and hated. So if someone draws a scribble, it may represent something, or have hidden messages. [1]. Many people perceive art through what is hidden, through what is behind the painting. What the painting is really trying to express. In the words of Napoleon Bonapart "A picture is worth a thousand words." [2] Graffiti expresses hidden messages, and hidden thoughts, just like in art. Secondly, graffiti is not only vandalism, it is a form of art. For example, when you draw graffiti on a piece of paper, it is still graffiti, not vandalism. Here are some examples. [3] So graffiti is not always connected to vandalism. Since vandalism according to your argument "Vandalism is willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures." and graffiti can be done on paper without vandalising or destroying anything, it is considered art. Also, graffiti is technically art, since graffiti is also known as street art. It literally has the word "art" in it. In conclusion (thus far) graffiti is a form of art that portrays drawings, scribbles or symbols. This can be done illegally by being portrayed in areas accessible to the public, or simply drawn on paper or a canvas. When graffiti is done illegally, it is spontaneous and dangerous. However it is free, giving street artist no boundaries. Also these artist go against the world to demonstrate their ideas, their ideas that society has rejected. Ideas that only few people who truly see art for what it is, not for how it was done can understand. Graffiti is not only art, but it is more worthy of being considered art than many famous paintings such as the Mona Lisa. Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci was a loved man. He was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. [4] He was praised and loved, and his art work was as well. He could make a painting with ease and all would love him. He had little to fear when it came to his art. Street artist are forsaken, they have a lot to fear. However, they fight against the odds, and create amazing art that no one would except, but they were not scared, they did what they loved. Leonardo da Vinci loved his work also, but street artist had to fight for others to love their work to. So in conclusion, graffiti is a form of spontaneous dangerous art that is only excepted by few. Sources: 1.http://www.psfk.com... 2.http://www.brainyquote.com... 3.http://chottomatteiru.blogspot.ca... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org...