Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewArt Challenge (2/2)
Ok. This is the second of the last two This is the second of the last two art challenges that I will be able to do... Any theme is allowed No digital art or eting is allowed. Any media shall be allowed. The art pieces can be any size. Each side shall present two art pieces. One piece for each round (r2 &r3) First round is acceptance. The art pieces have to be of your own creation and yours only. Good luck.
Graffiti can be art.
Flaws in my opponent's arguments I wonder if my opponent noticed these. There are many flaws in his arguments. He is playing the semantics card, and either way it isn't working Definitions don't always need a source, sometimes they are created personally but are still acceptable Just because something is bad, doesn't make it not art My opponent proved absolutely nothing thus far, and won't be able to since next round he is not allowed to make any arguments whatsoever. So I would like to quickly point these out before I begin with my rebuttals. Rebuttals " have no idea what my opponent is saying in the first two sentences. However, for the rest of the statement, according to the definition of graffiti, it must be on a public surface to be considered graffiti. a piece of paper is not a public surface and therefore a drawing on a piece of paper is not, by definition, graffiti." This is comepletly irrelevant. Graffiti according to your definition is a public surface, however this is not true. You cannot use your definition to protect all your arguments, because it is false. Graffiti can be drawn on paper. It is a style of art, or writing, not just a form of vandalism. So because of such, it can be written on paper, and therefore an art. "This first paragraph has no basis behind it and should be considered solely an attempt by my opponent to increase the broadness of this debate more in his/her favor. Since there is a definition, this debate should follow by this definition. " Once again, my opponent fails to understand that he can't hide behind his definitions, this is playing by semantics, one of the lamest ways possible to debate, unless of course you are trolling. Art is subjective, so anything and everything can be art. You definition is just how someone percieves it, however it is completley subjective. Because of such, anything can be art, and graffiti is just one fo those things. "My opponent does not have the right to change the resolution of the debate by trying to claim that art can't be defined." Actually, I can, considering art is subjective. You can't rely on 1 definition, considering there are thousands of definitions out there, so we are to go along with the fact that art is subjective, therefore anything can be art. Here is a simple explanation to prove it. War does not fit into your definition of art, however Sun Tzu wrote a book entitled "the art of war", implying there is art in war. So as you can see, the definition is not important, because art is seen in many ways. So if someone were to see graffiti as an art, which I do, it automatically proves my point that graffiti can be an art. "That picture provided is nice. However, my opponent has not proven that this picture is "graffiti". I went to the site provided and it doesn't mention it being unauthorized. This could be an authorized mural. The following website is a building in the Mission District of San Francisco that is a mural, not graffiti. These types of works can be found all over the bay area and are considered art.T" What my opponent fails to notice is that graffiti isn't only vandalism. Graffiti is actually a art style. [1] This style includes interresting fonts. Sometimes it is on streets, but sometimes it is on paper. Even if this were a mural, it is drawn in graffiti style, making it graffiti. "I accept this definition for vandalism because it was reliably sourced. This definition of vandalism is almost the exact same as graffiti. Because graffiti is unauthorized drawings, it is therefore malicious destruction of public property. Therefore, my opponent's contention is false because according to the definitions, graffiti is always vandalism even though vandalism might not always be graffiti." As shown above, I have already proven that graffiti isn't always vandalism, but actually a art style. "Once again, since this does not fit the definition of graffiti, this should be disregarded. Drawing on a poster for an art class is not an unauthorized drawing on public property." Once again, your definition is false, and should not be used. I have already proven graffiti is a style, so if drawn on paper, it is still graffiti, but not illegal. "It is unreasonable for me to explain every piece of graffiti ever made. Since it is more reasonable for my opponent to simply show one piece of graffiti that could be art to disprove me, the burden of proof falls on my opponent. Because my opponent did not provide a single example of a piece of art that actually fit the definition of graffiti, my opponent has failed to prove that "graffiti can be art". I have already proven various graffiti painting are art. Also, even if illegal and wrong, it is still art, because everything is art. I have already proven that graffiti can possibly be art. Because of such, my point is proven. "I have proven that graffiti cannot be art, but is rather a selfish act of vandalism that will only have negative results on the community. It forces the community to clean up after others rather than spending the money on community centers, or other services that could improve the lives of its residents." Did you really now? You did not prove anything, you stated personal opinion. You dropped so many of my arguments, just because they didn't match the definitions that we did not agree upon. You have forgotten to rebuttal the fact that just because something is wrong does not render it no longer art. Even if something is wrong, it can still be art. Because of such, this points is irrelevant. CONCLUSION What did I prove? I proved everything can be art, regardless of the biased definitions my opponent presented. Anything can be art, since art is subjective. Regardless of the ethics behind it, it is still art. Furthermore, if someone were to draw graffiti on paper, it is acceptable, yet still graffiti. So in the end, this all proves that graffiti can be an art. What did my opponent try to prove? He tried to prove it is not art because it is wrong. I have already explained how even if it is right or wrong, it can still be art. Sun Tzu was my main example of such. He didn't prove anything, and he hid solely behind the definitions he presented, even though they were unfair. I did not agree with those definitions, and so I created mroe resonable ones, backed up by proof. In the end, I proved that graffiti is an art style. So it is already art. It can be illegal, but that does not shread away the fact that it is artisitic. Anything can be art, and so graffiti can be art, so the resolution is upheld. I would like to remind voters and my opponent that he is not permitted to rebuttal, or create any arguments any longer. He is only permitted to write "Thanks for the debate". If he does not do so, or even slightly creates a slight way to counter or make any new arguments, he must endure the full point forfeit. Source: 1.http://weburbanist.com......
Art Challenge (1/2)
Ok. This is one of the last two art challenges that I will be able to do... The theme will be PEOPLE(S). No digital art or editing is allowed. Any media shall be allowed. The art pieces can be any size. Each side shall present two art pieces. One piece for each round (r2 &r3) First round is acceptance. The art pieces have to be of your own creation and yours only. Good luck.
Video Games are an art form.
I'll find one of my friends with Bioshock and borrow, thanks for the suggestion. A: All video games have goals In addition to all of the previous arguments for this, I like your new argument about new video games with choice manipulation. I can think of one big example that I have experienced, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords. In the game, one decision can change the rest of the game's storyline, which is innovative and very intresting. Unfortunatley, there are still decisions created by the game creators, in the case LucasArts. LucasArts is making you conform to a set way of thinking, a set way of interpreting the game. Standerd art forms allow the observer to decide how to interpret it, and though choice manipulation is much more of an art form than other video gameplays, it is still not a form of art. B: Deliberation Once again, I found your argument very creative. The most birds with one stone, amusing. But that still isn't a video game, thats a regular game. The definition of a video game as provided by Merriam-Webster is an electronic game played by means of images on a video. Electronic games can't happen randomly, they have to be man-made. Also, simply because only one person can enjoy doesn't discout a memory as an art form. Art can still be enjoyable if only one person could observe it. If the entire world was deaf, and only you could hear things, would music stop being an art form? http://www.merriam-webster.com... C: Creators of Art I have yet to see a book that, in the sense of a form of art, allowed the reader to make major decisions. I have seen 50 cent flip books that allow the reader to go on a 'quest' and make decisons for themselves by flipping to different pages, but these books are probably not considered art forms. Same thing applies to interactive movies. And though there might be many meanings in a game, the game still has a standard set of goals that the gamer must achieve, and the creators of the game are in essence forcing the gamers to conform to the set of goals. The goals of a video game do not allow the gamer to interpret it the way he or she pleases. Instead, the gamer must achieve a certain set of goals. The interpretation in a video game only goes as far as how the gamer views the game, not on how the outcome happens. And as for the kid/ college book and newb/elite gamer, though these may be considered analogies, these only perfectly correlate to each other if gaming is considered an art form, which this debate is all about. Also, movies are not all the time taken as a whole. For example, many movie soundtracks are given an award for the composer and the quality of the music, and not the movie as a whole. In the gaming world, this never happens. Soundtracks in relation to gaming always stick with the game. Thank you for clarifying your point. I understand what you were trying to say, but though standard art forms have less appreciated sides to them, they still have the characteristics of being art, while video games do not. At the beginning of this debate, I sought to define the word "art" as to further clarify this debate. Unfortunaley, I found many sources that had contradicting definitions. Also, many say that art cannot be defined, and though my opponent and I were able to establish what we consider art, it still the leaves the definition up in the air. Below I have listed a source that discusses how art cannot be defined. Voters, I urge you not to vote on anyone else's definiton of art, only vote on what my opponent and I have established as the definition of art through our arguments. http://www.smashingmagazine.com... In conclusion, I strongly believe that video games are not an art form for all the reasons listed.
It is impossible to define art
Summarizing your arguments: 1) The dictionary gives "manifestation" as a synonym for "expression," and "manifestation" implies that something must be revealed. But art is art regardless of whether or not it is seen/appreciated by others. 2) Art can't be defined because people will disagree. My responses: 1) I agree that art doesn't need to be shown to others in order to be considered art. Expression can be private. If I paint a painting then lock it in a safe without ever showing it to anyone else, are you saying the painting would cease to be expressive? That's just silly. When a person writes in a private diary, isn't that expression? 2) As I said before, I don't expect this debate.org page to spawn a global art revolution that will accept my definition as gospel, but I do think it's a pretty good definition. I have to disagree with your assertion that my definition doesn't apply well to certain forms of art. Consider: the central drive of every person who purports to create art is to convey thoughts, sensations and/or emotions. The way I see it, that's basically the definition of expression.
Video Games are a form of art.
I have to prove nothing as a majority in order for it to be art... To be belief so is to rationalize in ignorance. An artist determines what is art for he alone can understand why it is considered art to him. A picture is a form of art. The majority of pictures are not looked at that way, but could be, if the said pictures had characteristics that made them beautiful to the observer. A paper cup could be crumpled in such a way to make it look unique then painted a few colors to further this quality, then be looked at as artwork. Artwork does not need to be proven in a majority in order for it to be artwork, as a matter of fact, it is a goal of most artists to create something completely different and unique, something that is not part of the majority of artwork, but a rare beautiful piece in it's own regard. You see... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Majority has nothing to do with it. Someone could build a horse out of glue and beer cans, but that does not mean that the majority of beer cans and glue have to be considered as artwork in order for the horse to be looked at as Artwork does not need to be proven in a majority in order for it to be artwork, as a matter of fact, it is a goal of most artists to create something completely different and unique, something that is not part of the majority of artwork, but a rare beautiful piece in it's own regard. You see... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Majority has nothing to do with it. Someone could build a horse out of glue and beer cans, but that does not mean that the majority of beer cans and glue have to be considered as artwork in order for the horse to be looked at as art. Video games are a form of art because they involve a great amount of things that fall into the realm of artwork. Shapes, colors, sounds, movements, etc. I will give you an example of a video game that I consider to be a modern work of art... Final fantasy XIII for PS3, PC, or XBOX 360. This game is beautiful in every way. The movements, the characters, the dialogue, the music, the world the game is played in, etc. What one person sees a work of art, another sees as nothing artistic at all. A picture of sunset, a horse made of beer cans, the movement of a dancer, the clothing on a fashion model, all of these things fall into the realm of normal accepted art. Movies, pictures, books, music... All of these things make up the accepted majority of art forms. Video games consist of some or all of these elements, and the combination therefor cannot be denied as a form of art.
Video Games are a form of art.
[1] "if anything that were created fell under the definition of art, then not only books or painting but also suitcases, bicycles, plastic cups and literally everything manufactured in some way would count as "art", voiding the word of any usefulness." 1.) I never said that all video games are a great work of art, only that video games in general are a form of art. A suitcase that is designed beautifully and made from alligator skin is a work of art, where a plain black suitcase would not have much weight from an artistic point of view in todays world. A fancily designed bicycle with 3 seats that is made of gold could most assuredly be called a work of art, where a plain red bicycle might not carry the same artistic weight. I plain plastic cup might not be considered very artistic, but a cup made from plastic that is made into the shape of a lion's head, could most definitely considered art. Literally everything that is created or manufactured could be looked at as a great work of art, or not, but it is all in the personal perspective of the observer that gives it such a definition. Maybe you did not see the first video games as a work of art, but ask someone else, someone in the computer field from before video games were around what they think... they very well might say, "What you did with this computer code was a work of art". [2] "Firstly, it is only relatively recently that games have become visually what anyone would consider to be beautiful. For example, to take a random example, outdated games like this one would not be considered beautiful by any standard measure of the term" My opponent assumes his measurement for determining beauty is universal. There is no standard measurement for the term beauty, to assume so, is a stance of ignorance. I was around when the first video games were being made and played. I felt the games I was playing were very beautiful indeed and this was before Nintendo 64. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... And so is art
Video games are art
An art piece is a creative work created to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power (1). While it is possible for a video game to be art, the majority of video games do not fit this criterion. My opponent has stated that many video games use graphics and modelling to create beauty. In this case, however, it is important to distinguish between design and art; art is to be appreciated for its beauty, while design is intended to facilitate something else. In this case, the design, such as graphics, of a video game is not primarily intended to be beautiful, but rather to create an environment in which the player can be entertained, making it design rather than art. Furthermore, not all video games need to use beautiful graphics; a barebones video game can consist of using coloured blocks as sprites. This is because video game graphics are intended to facilitate entertainment, and they do not need to be art in order to fulfill their purpose. It is possible to create a video game that is not art. A pong game, for instance, does not focus on graphics and beauty; its primary goal is to entertain, and its entertainment comes not because it looks good, but because it presents a challenge for the player to solve. Any computer program that entertains people by presenting a challenge is a video game, and beauty or emotional power are not necessary to presenting an entertaining challenge. As a result of the previous arguments, it is clear that video games are not necessarily art. Citations https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Bioshock is a work of art
Video games do combine mediums of many different art forms. Museums also combine mediums of many different art forms, because of this should we call museums art? No. My point is that video games may have artistic mediums inside them, but the video game is not an art form itself. Art- the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent says that saving the Little Sisters gave you an emotional high. Emotions based on moral values and sympathy and similar feelings. These have nothing to do with aesthetic values. Just because the situation inside the game gives you feelings of pity and sympathy, these feelings have nothing to do with aesthetic principles. My opponent states "the emotions are directed towards ourselves, feeling either good or bad about what we do." Moral decisions have nothing to do with aesthetics or art. The argument that the experience of the game were self-directed just goes farther to prove my case. In art, the maker transfers his emotions to the audience. Once someone interacts with the art and makes their own decisions which create their own seperate emotions, they are not recieving the maker's emotions. Once you actively change the art, it then stops being art. My opponent says the game is linear, but if he has to make choices and has options that affect the result, then it is not linear any longer. If a game is nonlinear, then it gives the audience options and these options then affect the result of the game, then it is no longer art. I realize my first argument was quite weak, but I was tired and decided to just raise a simple argument rather than rebut.
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.
