Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewArt Challenge
I like your drawing, I'm not really able draw items like a bag, or faces. Here it is (drumroll please). My final art piece. Once again, I have no title for this. May I point out that I decided to do this on my wall (hence the 30cm ruler for reference). I look forward to my opponent's last piece. http://www.debate.org...
Art Challenge
Well, that was a cool piece. Now, some ddo glitch is causing my previous link to be broken. Here is the link again for the first art piece: http://www.debate.org... ================================================================================ Well, I shall now present I piece that i created. I will be fighting your fire with even more intense fire! http://www.debate.org...
art is technically useful
I accept, BOP is on me to prove that art can be useful. 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. The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance. Useful - able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways.
Art and/or music are important in grade school.
Art and music programs are important to children in grade school as young minds are the most able to be cultivated and the benefits of both art and music on developing minds have been shown in various research publications. Art programs are able to cultivate developing artists to help gain jobs as artists -- as when competition arises for artistic competitions in later forms of education, those educated with art programs in grade school are more likely to succeed due to having more experience in their craft. Music programs are able to help instill knowledge in grade school kids at an elementary level of musical theory that could flourish into intermediate and advanced knowledge of music theory that creates future composers of music used in both commercial uses as well as uses that could entertain and inform the world in the future. If art and music programs were removed from grade schools, knowledge of art and music would be stalled which would limit the amount of jobs in art and music.
Art Challenge (2/2)
Ok, thank for you accepting. This is one my last ddo art debates, you should feel honoured ;p Jk. This is my This is one my last ddo art debates, you should feel honoured ;p Jk. This is my art piece. It is of Jared, Shannan and Tomo from 30 Seconds to Mars. If you wondering, I did this piece on my wall (it shall stay there forever). For size reference, I have blue-tacked a 30cm ruler to the wall. http://www.debate.org...
Art debate
*sigh* *jealous* Great round, Con! --not sure if i can beat him anymore-- Well, anyways, here's round 3! Animals! Link to mah art (because my phone won't post pics -.-) http://www.debate.org... Quick description: It's a bird! It's a plane! No, wait.... Animals... Definitely a bird.... ;P Sig is next to the tail :D Thanks again to Dennybug for accepting mah debate! :D
Dance is an art and a sport.
This debate is on the topic "Dance is an art and a sport. I will be doing the pro/for side of the debate. There are four rounds. First round is acceptance. Second round is full argument. Third round comprises of the rebuttals and the fourth and final round consists of the rebuttal and conclusion. The debate will be on dance; pro/for saying it is both art and sport and for/against for the side of against. Arguments can consists from several angles but none that comes from the stereotypical background.
Video games are a serious art form.
Good evening my dear fellow DDO members, welcome. The instigator has proposed the following idea: that video games can not be an art form, or a medium to express an artistic idea. I however, being both, unofficially, an artist and a game developer and thus have insight into both fields, state the opposite: that games can and are a medium for art. Since I am holding the affirmative idea it is but fair that I hold most of the BoP, so let's begin. What is art? This is a question that is as debatable as it is vague and might as well be a debate series all on its own. However, there is a plethora of ways that may help us decipher what art is. My opponent defined art, indirectly, as followed: --Art must be a reaction to life and or events. --Art must be able to influence other art. Albeit this is a good starting point for art I find it to be highly inaccurate and downright narrow minded. In addition it completely ignores a wide array of games that fit into either or both categories. Before I start my rebuttal and then present my own case I'd like to take the dictionary definition of art: Art[noun] The expression of emotions, creativity, imaginations and thoughts; Often to make appealing or atheistically stimulating products. And: ART 1[MASS NOUN] 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 Works produced by human creative skill and imagination This is taken directly from another debate I had on the subject on art where I also discussed in somewhat optimal ways what art is. [1,2 ] this isn't a complete definition, but it is a definition that can be applied to a lot, if not all, “proper” artwork and thus we can apply it to the examples I'll choose and see if it fits. Let's get to it. Videoart as my opponent defines it. In order to fully rebut the definition my opponent gave on art I only need to find games that fit into his two categories. Simple enough. In the first example he defined art as something that portrays a reaction to human life, human emotion and human society. Albeit this is debatable I'll still go with it for the next example. Heavy Rain [2010] was for instance a prime example of human emotion and how people react to emotional trauma. The plot line starts off immediately with the protagonist attempting to save his child from a car accident: something that leaves a large emotional scar. His life starts to spiral downwards from there, and when finally the interactive plot line itself begins we find that his only son has been kidnapped by a serial killer. The entire game from that point is entirely based on what a father would do to save his son, a deep love portrayal. Many, if not all, scenes in the game are filled with emotion and sorrow and we often sympathize with him, and often feel sad and bitter. dealing with emotions such as grief, sorrow, remorse, suicide, terror, panic, love, murder and pure insanity in a masterful and lifelike way. That kind of emotional power and influence is something a true art medium can have, stringing us along like a good film would. Even when we go into the simpler things: 2001, a space oddysy. Is not the only medium dealing with the dangers of corrupt AI and advancing tech or society. System shock[1994] and portal[2007] both put the player on a fight against an AI, and better yet the former is set upon a space ship. In addition to those two obvious samples there are a whole plethora of games that deal with humanity, human society and human emotion. A quick google search will reveal a whole lot of them. The second definition involves a game being able to influence some other art medium. I could take a game and analyze it, but instead I think it would be best just to mention Resident Evil[1996], Silent hill[1999] and then every single item on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org... along with all the fan made artwork that can be found on google with a little search. I left a few examples[3,4,5]. Now, that alone should be a case for the artistic value of games, but let's move on a bit. What makes a game into art? This is a question we might go a bit into further into the debate: but to start we can simply go into the definition: “The expression of emotions, creativity, imaginations and thoughts; Often to make appealing or atheistically stimulating products.” Now, I've already shown a game that is a reflection of emotion and frankly there are a lot of games that also fit that column. Don't be fooled, it takes a lot of creativity to make a good game and especially an artistic game and a lot of skill is involved. For instance: http://i.imgur.com... This is an untextured scene from my current project. Now, I admit, the lighting is incorrect and the textures are not present, but just the bare modelling took me an hour or two. I am not the best 3D artist in the world, but then you consider that just the modelling is hard work, and when you go into high poly models you're going into soom serious skill. And then you move away from modelling and think: What about all the other things that games are made up from? I can show you that there is next to every other art present in some form in video games. We have atheistically brilliant looking games. Try making that yourself and then try and tell me that this is not art. Note that this is not painted and this is not a static, pre-rendered images. These are all, to my best knowledge, dynamic screen shots taken in-game. [witcher III, witcher II, project eternity.) And even when you take all the fancy imagery that took hours and hours, weeks and weeks, to model, texture, shade and program, we still have the audio. The art of music. A composer can tell you that soundtracks do not write themselves, and they are art just like the visuals on the screen. Just listen to some of these [6] and tell me that they are not art in some form. I had a hard time picking some to showcase here directly and still wonder if I'm listening to a 5 star classical orchestra piece, a Greek temple chant, or a soundtrack from digital entertainment. ; we have sculpturing, architecture, CGI, a whole load of voice acting, motion acting, story tellers, painters and sound designers alike and an entire team of artists ready to entertain you. To conclude Video games are the ultimate form of art. It is interactive art where the artwork lures you in and welcomes you to discover the world behind the controller. They are a mix and mash and show the co-operation of next to all other artistic medium available to the common man. They offer art right to your doorstep and to your screen. Video games are art on the highest level, they fit every single definition of art and they roll around millions just by trying to impress you and connect with you. To entertain you, move you, transport you from your life and into the life of the characters that inhabit them. Video games are not art, video games are the art. 1]https://www.debate.org... 2]http://www.debate.org... 3]http://th05.deviantart.net... 4]http://designyoutrust.com... 5]http://www.blogcdn.com... 6]http://www.forbes.com...
Art Critique Debate! (Not Drawing Competition)
This is an Art Debate. Though not your or my art, well it could be, but not necessarily. We need to post one piece of art in each round, and give a brief explanation of why we find it so very impressive. We will give some details, and some basic critique as to why our piece of art is superior. This debate has a lot to do with the piece of art, but the level of critique and the reasons for admiration should also be taken into account. The first round is for acceptance only. Only those whose Elo exceeds 2000 may vote, with a Select Winner voting system. You must have a higher Elo than mine to accept. No semantics, trolls, or any such intellectual dishonesty is allowed and will result in a full loss.
Brewing is an art form
) While the BMC (Bud, Miller, Coors) brewers may produce beer for money for intoxicating beverages, craft brewers do not. 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. Many brewers take a couple years before they make a small profit, and many more years before they can pay themselves. And you know what? They don't care to pay themselves all the time (I am a home brewer looking to give my art to the public, and I'll do it without the idea behind making a huge profit). Alcohol is a by-product of the art, the 'art' is not the by-product itself. Many brewers have the intent to create art. It is their craft. CRAFT. Arts and Crafts usually go hand in hand. 2) Again, the alcohol is a by-product of the art. Just like graphic designers, authors, and painters have pieces that are taken in such a way that can be deterimental to society. People interpret them wrong and do some pretty crazy stuff. Well, at least they claim it does, just like people claim alcohol had full control over their decisions. Think Catcher in the Rye, John Lennon, and Mark David Chapman. Also, when people are drinking craft beer, they are usually drinking one kind, or are having a sampler platter that has a small amount of a handful of beers. And I have yet to see craft beer fans be violent, however I have seen bar goers do just that, but that is with the intent of being intoxicated. Just like wine offcianatos drink wine for it's taste, not the quanity of alcohol, craft beer fans are there for the look, smell, taste, and mouthfeel (the way it feels in the mouth). This art of brewing beer has definitely furthered society. When it was first invented, the water was undrinkable due to it's filth. No, they did not need to make beer, but they had something to replace what was simply deadly water. This art of beer further society in SUCH a big way. We know that the pilgrims stopped at Plymouth Rock, right? Well, do you know why they did? They ran out of beer. ( http://www.straightdope.com...), (http://www.fermentarium.com...) The pilgrims ran out of provisions, beer being one of them, because it replaced water for them. 3) This could not be further from the truth. Brewing allows for a wide variety of expression. Many, MANY spices and seasonings can be added, as well as fruit flavors. And craft brewed beer is not cheap. While a 12 case of Budwiser may cost $6.00, a handcrafted brewed 12 ounce bottle of beer can cost between $3.00 and $9.00. Almost $30 for a alcohol barrel aged beer in a 22 ounce bottle. A craft beer lover will take in to account all sorts of qualities. In fact, look at ratebeer.com or beeradvocate.com, they give criteria in which one should rate their beer, such as, and I listed before, apperence, aroma, taste, and mouthfeel. The brewer out of the picture? Wrong. Boston Brewing Company's Founder Jim Koch is very in the picture of his brewery. In fact, if you take a tour of his brewery, you will see him working with in the brewery, not just an office either. This goes for many other breweries. The brewer has many qualities of artists and craft beer has qualities of arts. Even though the mainstream idea of beer is fuzzy yellow water BMC that is designed to be cheap and get you intoxicated, there is a whole different group of brewers. They just happen to be smaller than the mainstream, giving them the name "microbrews or microbreweries". They have ideas, they put them to work, they present the art to an audience, and the audience takes in the art and assesses it's qualities, the same way art critics and music critics assess the products of artists and musicians.
Should art be taught more seriously
I believe here I will break the mood when I ask what art(s) you may be referring to. Most forms of art (as a general term) can be used should you be the right person. Multiculturalism and delving into the formalities and typologies of art (as a general term) is canon in most US-based education.
art is useful outside career field
To summarize, Pro hasn't provide a strong rebuttal point, and has failed to give a reason as to art's usefulness outside a career field. As for a hobby, a hobby isn't very useful or practical, and art is just a waste of time. Art doesn't relieve stress either, it requires more concentration to do art properly and can be tiresome. Please vote for me.
Illegal art should be made accesible
The argument surrounding paedophilia relates to the fact that uncensored online material allows the option for paedophiles to view material containing children. I did not state or imply that looking at this material online makes someone a paedophile. I merely made the point that making illegal art accessible to all people means exactly that. All people can view it, even those with less than desirable intentions. "To ban anything in art can be both politically and socially dangerous." The issue with a statement such as this, as previously discussed in this debate, is that the internet has broadened what is considered ‘art' to such an extent that it is difficult to distinguish between what is genuine art, and what is just offensive material labelled ‘art' to avoid censorship. Without any system allowing a filtering of offensive material, much of the ‘art' on the internet will contain images and themes that are both offensive and disturbing to people who view them. Further to this, it is necessary to ban some art due to copyright laws, and this law shouldn't be overlooked just because the material is online. In reference to the example you gave of Bill Henson using naked teenagers fifteen years ago without any fanfare, as opposed to the hype surrounding his recent ones, this shows the power of new technology. Many people were exposed to the photographs as a result of the hype around them and their frequency online. The controversy is an example of the power of new technologies in circulating material such as this, allowing more people to be exposed to it and therefore more opinions surface. The material of Hensons photographs is sensitive, and I would argue that they should be censored online and people who just want to view them for their artistic merit should physically view them in a museum. Censorship is an issue that has always been regarded with some disdain by people,especially in a democratic nation but the progress of the new technology of the internet in superceding any offline limitations and regulations in place to protect original work and children, makes some sort of censorship the only option in bringing back some sort of regulation on the flow of information to the world. It is all well and good to say that people want to have the right to view this art but what about those who don't want to view it, what about those children who are too young to be able to understand the decision and stumble across photos of "art" of an obscene nature after typing in some semi-related words into a search engine, images like this are hard to be unseen, and promoting this exhibition on the internet reduces people's choice to see this kind of potentially offensive material. In the youtube video, "BCM301 Class discussion", this is a point made, by exhibiting on the internet, with the knowledge that everyone, all ages, political and religious beliefs varying, can use the technology, you greatly increase the chance of forcing this material down the throat of someone who may not wish to see it through the myriad of pop up images and links that appear on unrelated websites and the innaccuracy of some search engine responses. So is this fair? It is all well and good to say people should be able to view this material to appreciate it as "art", or whatever you define as art this week, but let these people seek it out in a physical art gallery, where limitations of access for those who are too young or choose not to see these images are as simple as shutting a door or asking for an ID card. Some images are hard to forget, in the offline world there is a whole, tiered and strict system for making sure certain images don't affect the wrong people with their lasting impressions without the express permission of said people. Just because the internet makes it possible to shove things down people's throats, it does not mean we have to do it, perhaps if we tried self regulating ourselves more often, extreme measures such as the censorship filter on the internet would not be necessary. I would also like to thank my opponent for their participation and insight into this topic.
Road kill is better than art
Argument: Your argument is unfounded since you fail to provide ground rules for said debate.. Is roadkill better? a) as a sport? b) as better art? You don't really specify if it is better art, or if it is better than art? Thus, I conclude by saying your argument as specified by Round 1 is still in a gray area of circular logic and paradoxical. Sorry!
Taekwondo is Not a Martial Art
As a Taekwondo practitioner, I am frequently assailed by this misunderstanding, and I am glad to have the opportunity to clear the air regarding the style that is the core of my personal martial arts repertoire. As a disclaimer, I have been a student of Taekwondo for most of my adult life. I will do my best to source anything that might be controversial, but this may end up being a difficult topic to discuss without drawing on my own knowledge. What is a martial art? Right from the start, CON makes the error of defining the term “martial art” only in terms of the word “martial.” Using CON’s own dictionary, we can define “martial art” as, “any of several arts of combat and self defense (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport” [1]. This definition clearly shows that martial arts are often practiced as sports, so the fact that Taekwondo is practiced as, and known for, sport, does not disqualify it from being a martial art. This definition is supported by several other dictionaries [2][3][4]. However, if we are going to use CON’s definition, I would like to note that CON wrote, “Taekwondo has to employ techniques that are useful in combat and/or self-defense.” Con notes in a later paragraph that Taekwondo sparring allows punches to the chest and kicks to the chest and ribs (he actually says “chestguard;” the Olympic Style chestguard covers the chest and ribs [5]). Do those techniques not translate to self-defense? Nowhere in the numerous definitions I provided, or even in the one CON provided, does it say that ALL (or even most) techniques must be martial in nature in order for a style to be considered a martial art. What is Taekwondo? CON’s next error was to conflate the numerous different flavors of Taekwondo that exist in the world. There are different types of sparring and different student/teacher combinations approach Taekwondo training in very different ways. Sparring CON gave a basic overview of Olympic Taekwondo Sparring, which is governed by the rules of the World Taekwondo Federation. However, in his discussion of Taekwondo sparring CON failed to mention the existence of other types of Taekwondo. In the International Taekwondo Federation, sparring rules allow punches to the face, as well as the trunk [6]. Regarding the lack of throwing, grabbing, etc, of course not. Taekwondo is primarily a striking art; it’s not what it focuses on. Judo does not allow striking or kicking [7], does that make it lose its status as a martial art? High Kicks Con also took issue with the high kicks practiced in Taekwondo. One of the things I teach my students regarding self-defense is to use techniques that you are comfortable with. Some people are able to use the appropriately without warm ups [8], some are not. Therefore, for some people, high kicks are a tool in their self-defense toolbox. Taekwondo Practice As I mentioned above, Taekwondo training takes many different forms. Some school focus on competition sparring [9], while others focus on self perfection [10]. I have been to schools that really push the practical self-defense and others that are more of an aerobics class. Many school have different instructors that each have their own focus. Millions of people across the globe practice Taekwondo [11]; it is not possible to paint them with a broad brush. Conclusion Right off the bat, CON’s definition of the term “martial art” is suspect, but even if we use it, I have shown how Taekwondo fits that definition. I have also shown that CON tries to use one specific subdivision of the Taekwondo community to judge an entire art; a simple study of other school of thought within the style show that this argument fails. CON has not met the burden he accepted when he made his initial claim. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5] https://www.google.com... [6] http://www.barrel.net... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.aikiproductions.com... [9] http://www.remarcksport.com... [10] http://www.taekwondo-pdx.com... [11] http://www.worldtaekwondo.com...
Loving is an art
Contention 1: Justification of Love - Skill doesn't necessarily take time and practice, as is evidenced by people with Savant Syndrome. They have exceptional skill in one particular area of their lives, although they are of relatively low intelligence in other areas. [1] Particularly relevant are savants with artistic abilities. For these people, art comes naturally, they don't need to develop skill over time. If skill and practice are not always necessary, then immature love will not always require skill and practice to become mature love. Maintaining Love Through a Difficulty - - In this case, it would be extremely difficult for them to met your definition of mature love. Although they may love one another, and unconditionally so, their relationship would not experience one of the stages my opponent says is important to developing mature love, and so would not be considered art. Contention 2: The quote says the love is directed at "only one other person", and I assumed this to mean it was someone else that the person loves. If it is referencing the love of ego, then it still could be love, only on a more limited scale. In the definitions of love Pro provided at the start of Round 2, no distinction on scale is made to differentiate immature and mature love. Contention 1: - The mother does begin the process of loving when the child is born, which was the point of this example. The love may change as the mother and child grow older, but at least some love must be present around the time of he child's birth, or there is no reason to raise the baby. If it is, then the love is present without first having skill and practice. Contention 2: - Not all couples do this, so it is also possible that they did get married out of love, which you have not disproven. - The point of this example was to illustrate the case of someone who is in love with someone who does not necessarily love them back in the same way. The other person i the relationship is still in love. Sources [1] http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Video Games are an art form.
Hello, this is Tiscooler, and as the con I will be arguing that video games are not art. I accept the rules for each round. I agree with your rules for the burden of proof, but I would like to also state that as the pro, the burden of proof rests mainly on you to prove video games are an art form. I would also like to provide a definitions pro did not clarify: "are"–verb present indicative plural and 2nd person singular of be. [1] "video game"-noun A type of game existing as and controlled by software, usually run by a video game console or a computer, and played on a video terminal or television screen. [2] I look forward to having a good debate! [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://en.wiktionary.org...
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools
Art and music are very creative and vast subjects. However it is not necessary that everyone shall be a good musician or good at art. Hence music and art as compulsory subjects sound to be wrong. It is nice if schools have infrastructure facilities to teach art and music. Those who have a deep aptitude for art and music can take-up those subjects and even master those for that matter. At the same time making subjects of music and art as compulsory, may take a considerable amount of time and energy of students which otherwise he or she can devote towards main subjects like, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. Devoting time to main subjects is a paramount importance for success in the examinations and future career. Hence and art and music may be optional but not compulsory. Music and Art shall be highly beneficial to those who have an aptitude of learning art and music and aspirant musicians and artists. Subject of Art and Music is very creative and one must learn it. Nevertheless the world is not composed of artists and musicians only, apart from this, everyone may not become artist and musician nor art and music form a base or constitute the foundation of academia. In conclusion art and music are purely subjects that must be indulged in for creativity and entertainment to those who opt for and should not be made compulsory for all students
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.
Modern Art
Nowadays, I look at a painting and I don"t know if it was an artist that made it, or just a child.. http://www.graphiccloud.co.uk... http://accidentalhedonist.com... Back in the day, we had some good artists. I like a lot Salvador Dali, but there are others well known, Miguel Angelo, Leonardo Da Vinci. Why now, the paintings are so "simple" in some ways, just lines and colors. I think its funny, because people say that those paintings transmit emotions, but I"ve already tried to "feel" the draw, and its pointless. It seems that today, videogames are the real art. If someone can make me change my mind, you are welcome.
