A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and...
Art needs beauty
A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO but ill throw you a bone, since you want to do this......
art is needed in todays society
yeah. im bored. have you listened to the cd? but ill throw you a bone, since you want to do this... first off, i never said that "we" should ALL create but ill throw you a bone, since you want to do this... first off, i never said that "we" should ALL create art. i proposed the appreciation of it. i dont need any evidence to prove my argument. one can see it every day. the rushed, almost desperate, movements pf everyday people, the expressions in peoples' faces, etc. why is it? its because society has forgotten to simply stop for a few moments and observe - appreciate. whether it is the appreciation of nature, drawings, sculptures, the people themselves, it is all art.
-
PRO There are very few people who recognise when someone is...
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art
There are very few people who recognise when someone is abused because a lot of people take up a martial art at a young age and have quickly learnt to obey their master and mentally conditioned to accept abuse. It is possible you do not know whether your master is a deceptive bully. You seem to think the videos I have shown earlier are "normal training" otherwise you would not think I should prove every martial art instructor needs to be a deceptive bully for it to be banned for children. I have found another video, see below, to make my point clearer, it shows a martial art instructor actually kill a mentally ill man in his dojo. Notice that nobody in the room calls the police, or questions their instructors actions. WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC Do you think children should be brought up like this? Is it okay if the minority of children are mentally, physically and sexually abused? If martial art instructors bully their students (which I've shown they do), and cause people to turn a blind eye to abuse (which I've shown they do), it is therefore clear that martial art training will not help to stop bullying. In fact it makes it worse. If you read the comments of some of these videos you'll see people think they are funny. E.g. people think what they see is fake and funny on the below video but why would it be?? I have heard instructors say 'if martial arts is banned for children it would take away their right to defend their self'. However this is pure nonsense. Children don't need to learn how to break bones, boards, knock people out etc. They should be taught how to diffuse situations, when to call the police etc. Martial art instructors want kids to live in fear increasing violence so they make more profit. At one time it was necessary to train young people to be assassins, but now shoppers put their lives in danger to stop robbers. Criminals won't think 'a shopper might know karate and stop me, I won't carry out an armed robbery today'. They will think they can get whatever they want with a gun. Kids don't need to learn martial arts to stop bullies, if enough kids knew right from wrong and stepped in to stop a bully or tell a teacher the bullying will end. Isacc Ehrilich may be a distinguished professor but I don't believe he knows that children can scream.
-
PRO Bioshock is a survival horror first-person shooter video...
Bioshock is a work of art
Bioshock is a survival horror first-person shooter video game designed by Ken Levine and developed by 2k Boston. The game plays off of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged: led by Andrew Ryan, industrialists, artists, and scientists have retreated from the world and built Rapture, a dystopian city at the bottom of the Atlantic. When the game begins, however, the city and its citizens have been corrupted by their own arrogance, as genetically manipulated splicers creep through the corridors and hallways of Rapture. It seems like all humanity has been lost, and it is the player's objective to kill Andrew Ryan and escape Rapture. In a previous debate with USM, I argued that video games were not actually works of art. But after playing through and considering the aesthetic and philosophical depth of Bioshock, I feel compelled to recant my position. Bioshock is a work of art. It is a monumental human achievement, the magnum opus of gaming, and I would like to take this opportunity to defend it till my dying breath. I welcome anyone to take this debate, but I ask that challengers take it seriously and not attempt to derail it with semantics or other forms of silliness. I accept the full responsibility and burden of proving Bioshock is a work of art.
-
PRO These are some more expensive pictures, but as you can...
Modern Art
http://fineartamerica.com... Not all abstract art is expensive. The price now remains on the quality of the picture. http://www.ugallery.com... These are some more expensive pictures, but as you can see, the quality is much better. Now normal "kids" wouldn't be able to draw these things. Also the price doesn't just increase because of the artist, it depends on the quality of teh painting. Humans are very good at deceiving themselves, but some drawings from kids are really good, and some drawing for professionals aren't that good either.
-
PRO Art is the best!!
Is ART Better Than Sports
Art is the best!!
-
PRO I do not agree, art was not practised by earlier...
art is useful outside career field
I do not agree, art was not practised by earlier generations of humans as a "career", it was practised to express feelings and opinions as well as represent and write history. Fro 18-20 century art and music was very popular, some artists mastered art so well visitors would cry because it was vivid or expressed feelings of sadness or betrayal.
-
PRO Art is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you...
Art rules.
Art is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so.
-
PRO First of all not all video games feature blood and...
Video Games Are An Art Form
First of all I would like to thank the contender for joining in this debate. Now I think in order to properly analyze and argue what you have argued we must define art. Webster's defines art as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. " You make the contention that because video games are made of virtual images and pixels mean that it is not of artistic merit. I must say that whatever form art is made of does not dictate whether it is art or not. Would you discredit any film that uses computer generated imagery because it is not physically there? I'm sure if you spoke to anybody who programs for video games and created these "virtual images" you speak of you would know how hard work and artistry are required. You say that in your opinion "killing and blood all over the place is not the type of art." First of all not all video games feature blood and killing, in fact some of the most aesthetically beautiful games (Flower, Journey, Braid) feature no killing at all, and even so if games such as BioShock or The Walking Dead feature killing and blood, so what? Schindler's List features violence and ruthless killing, does that make that film inartistic? Or Saving Private Ryan? Or any painting that depicts violence? You also seem to say that animation creates the storyline in games and the gameplay itself is simply killing and inartistic nonsense, also I must say that games such as BioShock feature in-game storytelling by way of audio diaries recorded by people telling of the fall of a great city by way of the interior politics (the game itself is an indictment of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy), and in Journey you yourself participate in all of the aesthetic beauty in the game, and even if in some games the story is told by cut-scenes and the gameplay itself doesn't carry much in storytelling I must again say this, so what? Cut-scenes are just as important to video games as gameplay, they give video games a way to tell the story in a way the uses angles and allows the creators of the game to create their artistic vision in the video game. If I have misinterpreted anything or left anything out please rebut.
-
PRO I really don't feel like wasting my time with a debater...
Bioshock is a work of art
I am thoroughly disappointed by my opponent's response. In Round 1, I explicitly asked that my opponent not use semantics or other forms of silliness. I think completely ignoring my case, and claiming video games are architecture, is such a form of playing with semantics or other silliness. I really don't feel like wasting my time with a debater who explicitly ignores the terms of this debate, so I will briefly explain what is wrong with Con's arguments, and leave it at that. The claim that Bioshock is architecture is a non-starter: 1) There is nothing that prevents architecture from being art, and my opponent has not shown otherwise. Many works of architecture, for example the works of Catalan architect Antoni Gaudi, are considered art. 2) A central part of the game is its interactive fiction, which is further thematizes in the tension between freedom and control. As players realize that they have no control over their character, and that they have been under the illusion of free rational choice, when really, what they have been witnessing is the unfolding of a narrative that is independent of the player's choices, shows that the game is not solely architectural. Video games combine the mediums of many different I really don't feel like wasting my time with a debater who explicitly ignores the terms of this debate, so I will briefly explain what is wrong with Con's arguments, and leave it at that. The claim that Bioshock is architecture is a non-starter: 1) There is nothing that prevents architecture from being art, and my opponent has not shown otherwise. Many works of architecture, for example the works of Catalan architect Antoni Gaudi, are considered art. 2) A central part of the game is its interactive fiction, which is further thematizes in the tension between freedom and control. As players realize that they have no control over their character, and that they have been under the illusion of free rational choice, when really, what they have been witnessing is the unfolding of a narrative that is independent of the player's choices, shows that the game is not solely architectural. Video games combine the mediums of many different art forms, including music, narrative, text, words, images, sounds, cinematography, etc. In closing, it is clear that Con has not show that architecture cannot be art, and Con has also not shown that Bioshock is exclusively architectural, as the game also uses elements from many other artforms.
CON
-
CON museums already do this. ... This is evident in the fact...
free admission to art museums
museums already do this. This still is not enough money to replace admission fees. This is evident in the fact that most free This is evident in the fact that most free art museums have to close because of finances.
-
CON But that is hardly a sign of beauty, as these sources are...
Video Games are Art on Par with Motion Pictures.
According to Pro, films and video games have to meet three criteria to be considred "art": aesthetic appeal, a coherent plot, and philosophical depth. Pro's case 1. The game Journey may be beautiful according to some people, but I doubt artists would find it beautiful, or art historians, or art scholars. When Pro claims it is "as beautiful" as Malick's The Tree of Life, Pro is making an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. A quick look at revies of Malick's film shows that it is considered by artists, art critics, art historians, curators, public intellectuals, in short, anyone qualified to make the claim that it is art. Who says Journey is beautiful (no claim of it being art yet)? Pro cites Entertainment Weekly, IGN, and various video game companies. But that is hardly a sign of beauty, as these sources are not authorities on the matter. In fact, these sources are entertainment sources, suggesting Journey is entertainment, not art. Beautiful entertainment, but entertainment nonetheless. Pro claims the Smithsonian held an exhibit on early video games. This tells us that, as a historical phenomenon, video games are art. As a historical fact, many things are considered art that ordinarily are not considered art. You can go to museums and plausibly find the Throne chair of some medieval king. Is that chair art? You can rest assured it was never intended to be art. Hence the question: are video games art in and of themselves? Pro provides no evidence as such. Moreover, Pro provides no reason to think beauty is necessary. For example, atonal music is considered modernist art, but atonal music is clearly not "beautiful." Saying video games are beautiful does not mean they are art. 2. Coherence is a not a factor in determining whether something is a work of art or not. Many of the greatest works of art, including literary, filmic, visual, and musical, are not coherent or representational. In other words, they don't tell a story, they don't represent or mirror reality in any way. Jackson Pollock's paintings are fully abstract. Examples of art films without a coherent plot include David Lynch's Inland Empire or Godard's Weekend. Many of the greatest films are non-linear, telling a story without spatial or temporal coherence. There are more radical examples, such as the films of Stan Brakhage, that eschew narrative altogether. 3. I agree that Bioshock is one of the truly great games ever made, but does this mean it is on par with Fellini's 8 1/2 or Godard's Breathless as art? Well, the game offers various moral decisions, which force the player to undergo various moral reflections. But does this make the game art? Vladimir Nabokov, the writer of Lolita, one of the greatest aesthetic works of fiction in the 20th century, stated that art is about pure aesthetic sensation, not moral reflection or philosophical pedagogy. Gilles Deleuze, french philosopher, wrote a book called "Logic of Sensation" in which he argues that art is affective or aesthetically conceptual, but not moral or philosophical. What is art? Kant argues that the aesthetic faculties are set in motion when confronted with beauty, say that of a flower. He called the motion of the falcuties "free play," and it was a persistent free play that Kant relates with the aesthetic. Per Pro's definition in Round 1, art is two things: the expression or communication of emotions/ideas, and the reader's aesthetic reception. There is a theory (reader-response theory) that says the meaning of all art lies in the viewer, because without the viewer, the art does not in actuality manifest itself phenomenlogically. In the case of a game, the game does not exist without the gamer assuming the guise of a player-character. The player-character is the player's fictional proxy in the world of the game, allowing them to perceive facts and to perform actions in the game-world. Games require players interact with the world itself. Whereas art can be the passive reception of affect or concept, games require players to interact actively. This is a good thing, because it makes games what they are: fun. But it makes games less artistic, in that it requires the viewer to engage it before the game can affect the viewer. It requires commitment, which is not required by art. Art allows indifference as an aesthetic response, games do not. What are video games? According to recent scholarship, games are formal systems of rules and objectives set within a framework of behavioral norms. Gameplay is determined by specific rules, objectives, and norms, which are, in the best games, brought together in a formal interactive fiction. Bioshock is an excellent example of a game, offering space for players to move and kill mutants with weapons. The objective is to kill Andrew Ryan and escape Rapture. The gameplay involves competition with a number of computer controlled opponents. If all the fictive elements are stripped away, the game would not be a game. Likewise, if all the gameplay mechanics were stripped away, it would also not be a game. So the key factors in a game are the interactive fiction, and the formal system of rules. Video games are not art Why are video games, as a medium, not art? Because art has nothing to do with formal systems of rules and objectives or with a framework for interactive fiction. Do you know what a formal system of rules, objectives, and interactive fiction sounds like? Two things: langauge and life. There is a long history of art, tracing its relation to life, going all the way back to Plato. Plato censors art from the ideal city because art is one step removed from life, and therefore, two steps removed from truth. Consider: video games offer a formal system which can be populated by aesthetic objects, but populating a formal system with aesthetic objects does not automatically make it art. For example, consider a film about Picasso, and the film is filled with representations of Picasso's artworks. The film captures in one scene Picass's Guernica, a work of art shown in museums Does this automatically make the film art? No. Representing art objects within a formal system does not make something art. This brings me to my next point: Is a language art? Video games are like a langauge, providing a logical system in which players can move around and do things. People can create art with langauge, but language itself is not a work of art. Poets create art with words, but language, their medium of communication, is just that, a medium of communication. Video games, as an interactive formal system, is a medium that provides the possibility of creating art. Video games are a medium of communication. This means video games do not actually communicate or express anything themselves. They provide a framework, a formal system, in which players can express or communicate things. But the game itself? Does it communicate anything? Consider Chess. No one would consider Chess, as a game itself, a work of art. But players who play amazing chess games, and create incredibly aesthetic tactical and strategic combinations and moves, are considered artful. Hence, I want to emphasize the distinction in games between the game itself, Bioshock, and the way players play the game: the player's use of the game as a formal system. It is possible that a player use a game artfully to create an artful trajectory through the game, but the game itself is not generally considered a work of art. Video games and films Does the existence of games like Bioshock, aesthetic and philosophical in content, make some games art? This would amount to the following argument: because games have aesthetic fictions (which is to say, they contain aesthetic objects) they are art. No, as my example of a film populated with aesthetic objects already showed, representing aesthetic objects does not make something art. Hence, just because games have aesthetic features, beautiful environments, or interesting moral or philosophical concepts, does not make the game art. Out of time...
-
CON sports is better because in art you cant get physical...
Is ART Better Than Sports
sports is better because in art you cant get physical movement other then the fingers and wrist so in sports you can get fit
-
CON 3.) ... I look forward to the contender's rebuttal.
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool
I thank the contender for submitting his argument. On to my rebuttal. Rebuttal: Students need exposure to art. My opponent has made an argument that in order to be prepared for future confrontations with art you must be exposed to it in high school. This is not true. 1.) The introduction to the arts that they give in middle school would be enough to establish that there is indeed a thing called art and would teach any basics that they might need. 2.) A job or career that uses a form of art would, most likely, require a college art class, not a high school art class. 3.) If someone came up to you and said "Draw me a picture of a dog" or "Recite this dramatic piece of prose with emotion" would a single high school art class leave you any more prepared than plain ol' living? It hasn't done so for me, I still can't draw more than basic stick figures! Rebuttal: Art is a form of communication. I agree with my opponent on the fact that art is indeed a form of communication. It can, in my opinion, be one of the most emotional and expressive forms of communication. Also, just as my opponent says, art can be relaxing for the artist and, if the artist is good enough, for others. These are both reasons why art should be an option for students, here's why it should not be a requirement. 1.) Art is not a practical means of communication in our everyday lives and careers. We will never go to a business conference and sing out our report or draw out a customer's order in a restaurant. 2.) Art, unless refined, can actually be the opposite of relaxing. I had to take a music class in middle school and I hated it, but as much as I hated it, my parents hated it even more. I was quite terrible with (if my memory serves me right) the flute and my parents encouraged, even begged, me to not practice it. Rebuttal: Art gives an alternative for forms of genius. As true as this may be.. 1.) An artistic genius would have recognized their gift and willingly taken any art classes that they could. 2.) A academic genius looking for a challenge most likely has finished all required courses and has plenty of room for chosen electives such as art. I look forward to the contender's rebuttal.
-
CON First off everything takes some amount of skill to...
Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.
So I guess ill address your attacks in the same order 1. First off everything takes some amount of skill to accomplish. Next you have to look at is even if you don't "define" First off everything takes some amount of skill to accomplish. Next you have to look at is even if you don't "define" art you cant just ignore it. To say it doesn't exist is ignorant because you cant deny something that is right in front of you. 2. Happiness is something drawn from both definitions. For art is something that is created look at the interpretation i made for both definitions, everything is art if you follow any standards defining art, not just both of ours. 3. Grouping the arguments on this part, you said that following our definitions some people would see art. Thats what im saying above how everything is art, and sure saddened art is still art because it brings out raw emotion. 4. Yes it is a concept but that still is in existence its been proven time and time again, and you still havent said what we would call things that people like van gough and picaso have created are we supposed to ignore those works of art. 5. Like you said light is refracted, blue light so the sky is blue, blue light anyways. Thank you for the debate............Vote Negative
-
CON People like all sorts of different things. ... He has...
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.
-
CON It cannot convey the message on it's own. ... If the...
Is a pile of laundry art? Challenging an earlier debate
I'd like to thank my opponent for the response. She starts out with a short introduction to her round explaining, in a way, what art is and how it is subjective. How it once was intended to be atheistically: both visually and auditory beautiful. However, there are a few things I'd like to object to right off the bat. Subjective or objective: First off I already went over in the previous debate how art is in theory objective. The feelings it may portray is subjective but the initial impact the artist want's to convey is objective, the methods he used to create the artwork are almost always objective methods and there is a predefined array of objects that we will by default find to be artistic. Humans are incredibly predictable as a group. There may be subjective fluctuations within individuals but as a group we will almost always head for a similar, objective direction when it comes to art. We don't need unanimity, we need somewhat of a majority. As such we need to think as a group and consider: “will a majority of our current culture find this to be art.” This is done in an objectified method to cut our own biased opinion out of the debate. So, will they? I'll get to that again in a moment. Pushing the boundry: She then says, I quote: “but as per recent years it [art] has become increasingly obscure as artists try to experiment with more creative ways to portray their message, [...] Therefore as artists seek to push the boundaries further on what could be considered art“ Problem with that is that when you push a boundary it will eventually break. You cannot hide behind “this is obscure, I'm pushing art to it's limit!” At some point you will cease being artistic and just be obscure. Let m explain: There are in my opinion three overlapping main genres/goals of art. – Art that is meant to be aesthetically pleasing: such as paintings, statues, music e.t.c – Art that is meant to show off the skill of the artist. Such as architecture or mechanical art. – Art that is supposed to convey a message (for instance emotions). A pile of laundry is obviously not supposed to be skillful or something to marvel at. My bed Is supposed to give you a message. However. When you have to explain the emotion to the audience via the description you've killed that artwork. That artwork is now no longer the center piece and is just to support the story. The story can stand as art on it's own but the artwork cannot stand on it's own without the story as it would revert back to being laundry. It cannot convey the message on it's own. It shouldn't depend on the artist, as the artist isn't the one that decides it is art, the audience does. So, if the art medium cannot emit the general message on its own it has failed as an art form. It isn't pleasing, it isn't skillful and it cannot emit the correct message. Without a premise it will just be a random piece with no value. It cannot even be considered an artistic product seeing how not only can I recreate the work at home (see above) but I also realize that it is just a pair of pants I can get anywhere for a lot less. Buying After the night just signals that you have way to much money and have nothing better to spend it on. The description should not be the artform: Now, I have to praise my opponent for making me laugh with her brilliant over-analyzes of my “artwork”, I didn't expect her to interpret it so in-depth and for it to become so entertaining. But in the process she also helped me show another point. The point that the art revolves around the story and the medium is irrelevant. Being, among other things, a poet I could just as well have written a poem around that premise and eliminated the need to describe that back story because it is by default integrated into the art form. I could have created a painting and even if the story would have gaps I could still make the piece itself the art by having a skillful painting or embedding the sad emotion as a theme and emit that to the audience. I could have written a song, composed a musical piece, a novel, 3D rendered graphics, a play, video art, graffiti, the description that followed the laundry before,tried to create her face out of scrap car parts (preferably the car that killed her), or juststand in the corner of the museum and cried her name for a few hours. All of those are medium that have the possibility to emit a message without needing to really push the limit of what is art. Some of these are pleasing, some are skillful, some are really strange but they all have better potential to emit a message unaided than the clothes I had on when the accident occurred. Just putting the clothes on a wire frame that made them look like a human crouching over someone gave a clearer message. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against artworks that require you to interpret and decipher the message. But, I will set as a standard that if the sole purpose of the artwork is to portray a message it has to be clear enough to not include every single message there is. For instance, my opponent managed to come up with 4 different meanings to the piece under a gender view. 5 if you count my own story, and approaching this under society, capitalism, as an attack against modern art itself and so forth I could make a plethora of interpretations that more often than not portray opposite emotions and messages within a single piece. It relies on me to be the artist and create the art from a pair of pants. That's akin to placing a blank canvas to the wall and then expecting the audience to imagine what could be on the canvas. That's not art, it's not even subjective anymore, it is literally a $20 canvas that was nailed to the wall. Again, this circles back to the three main points: if the story is the art, the art is not the art;the audience must agree with the artist that it is art;art should not rely on the audience to convey the message. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Conclusion) Let's get back down to a personal level. Both my opponent and I are artists. We may deal with different spectra, with me being a storyteller, writer, poet, designing and programming games and expressing the world within my imagination. My opponent however, as far as she has described to us, deals with modern or contemporary art intended to work on a more raw emotional level and critique the real world. We both however share the one common goal of art: To establish a relationship with our audience. We aspire to move those that view our art, we want to make them understand what we are doing. We can do this in numerous ways, but neither of us would want to create a piece that fails to intrigue the audience. A pile of laundry as an artform does not establish a connection unaided. It relies on a different artwork, the story, to be understood. I can tell you that a pile of laundry will note score with the wast majority of people. If we ignore the entire premise of the three artworks (well two, the center one doesn't have a premise) we will suddenly see that outside that gallery we would never recognize it as art as opposed, the context of “this is intended as art” is note present anymore. As a medium an ordinary object cannot fulfill the intention the artist wants and will instead just be itself, an object with no further meaning. If the audience cannot identify it as art then it isn't art. Art isn't created with intention; it is created by perception. A pile of laundry cannot be art in itself. It will always require help, it will always require context and it will never manage to create a message the audience can understand. If the audience will in a majority of cases fail to understand the message, will have at most comments on how lazy or unoriginal the piece is or will in general not conceive the intention of the artist and are required to over analyze the piece to find enjoyment or artistic value in it the artist has failed: he has not created art, but the default pile of dirty laundry.
-
CON Let's do this, yo! ... Fyi, this is most definately...
Art MasterPiece Challenge!
Let's do this, yo! I accept. I look forward to my competition. Fyi, this is most definately going to be my last Fyi, this is most definately going to be my last art challenge. Who has the time nowadays? Let's go!
-
CON Thus we see the contrast between my “After the Night” and...
Is a pile of laundry art? Challenging an earlier debate
I'd like to thank my opponent for the challenge and hope for an entertaining debate. I'm sorry how long it took me to respond but unfortunatly the challenge arrived during my finals and I had a lot of real life duties to attend to first. Defining the terms In order to be able to discuss this topic to begin with we must first find a definition on what art is and define the terms. This not only does this help us clear up the debate and express our arguments but it also keeps us from debating semantics and derailing the debate. Assuming my opponent has no objections (if she does she should come to an agreement with me via PM or comments before posting her next round. Posting without objecting or reaching an agreement signals that she agrees to these definitions) Art 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 Pile of laundry: Both the literal meaning along with any art that does not require skill, effort, imagination nor originality, “lazy” art. Art and Artforms (introduction) There is a lot of debate on what “art” is. Art can be subjective, objective, emotional, moving, imspiring, require creativity and skill of the artist... or apparently a group of belts pinned to the wall. To avoid repeating myself I already defined and discussed the definition and objectivity of art in the debate my opponent cited, and as such this debate will be an extension of that debate. In the last debate I went over the idea that not everything is art, and that any form of art should require skill, require originality, imagination or be able to awaken a predefined set of emotions. My opponent has challenged the notion that a pile of laundry is art and in his case she pointed out this artwork I will tackle this in two ways: The first, lesser, way is that this isn't a pile of laundry and as such isn't lazy art as I described it, but more importantly, this isn't the art. We'll get there. Lazy art requires no thoughts When I first discussed lazy art I referenced to this artwork as a pile of dirty laundry. This takes no thought (I checked, there isn't a back story as far as I could tell), it took absolutely no effort and it by no standard is art. To prove that I went into my closet and recreated the artwork. The longest time required in its construction was the time it took for me to upload the image to DDO. [After the night, Oculus_de_logicia] Is this, by default, art? It's a pile of clean trousers, boxers and socks. There is nothing artistic about this and It took under half a minute creating it. In contrast to “my bed” that did require thought, effort (Have you ever carried a bed ? That thing is heavy!) and is intended to awaken emotion, instead of the usual “I nailed belts to the wall, now give me money!” Emin is trying to invite us into her life and her depression at the time which is incredibly brave of her, and it required an artistic mind to try and express that in such an unorthodox way. Her art may not have required skill per say, but it was intended to awaken emotions. Thus we see the contrast between my “After the Night” and “My bed”. However, this is only part of the explanation why “My bed” might be considered art. The other part is, the art is all in “My” and not in “Bed”. Let me explain: The story is the art let's circle back to my bed. Scroll up and look at the image of the piece. Let's assume that there is absolutely no story behind it. Nothing to cry over. Just imagine you're in the museum and stumbled across it. Would your first reaction honestly be: “Oh, that poor artist, I can just feel the depressing sorrow radiate from that piece, how she lay there hours and hours on in her own torment during a sad period in her life.”? I'm sorry if I am mistaking, but I am going to doubt it. Your first reaction most likely will be: “what the fritz happened here?” it's not until after you've read the description that you start to understand why the bed is as it is: and you by no mean will consider it to be art until you've received that back story. From that we conclude that the art is directly bound to the story that is attached to the artwork, that on its own my bed isn't art but a messy undone bed. In comparison to the Sistine Chapel we can admire it by the pure emotional power it awakens within us without a back story, the skill it required to both build and paint it and the overwhelming knowledge that it took 4 years to create it. So, without taking anything away from Emin and her art style we can see that her art, in this case, has no power on its own. We need the back story. To fully understand and appreciate it. Because art is defined by the audience, as stated in the former debate, my bed would not be considered art without the story as the audience cannot read the original intention, they see a bed where she sees pain. For instance: let's go back to “The Night After.” We'll all agree that this isn't art, all right? But, what if this note was attached to the wall next to it?: After the night Oculus_De_logicia This artwork represents the inner turmoil that occurred within the artist the last time he wore these pants and boxers. It was a dark evening and he had gone out with his sweetheart, his fianceé and lover of 4 years. It was dark and cold when they decided to leave the diner, a bit intoxicated but happy. They crossed over the street and into their own neighbourhood. They had let their guard down as they enjoyed their total euphoric experience that followed the loving presence of each other. Without warning the artist heard a heavy sound of a car engine over the chilling wind. He turned around and witnessed a man, driving a shining red car, speed towards them. The artist looked at the car as it speed toward them, and before he could react heard a shearing scream. The next thing he knew was his bloody hands wrapped around his lover as she gasped for air. the red car speeding away from the scene. The next hours came crashing down on him the ambulance delivered them to the hospital. As he witnessed the love of his life fade into the hands of god he felt as all life had been struck from him as well. His last memory of the night was how he stumbled home, dropped his trousers on to the floor and entered the most void and heartbreaking depression that he had ever felt, the trousers remaining on the floor for days to come. Now, assuming you had seen this in a museum and not the internet; would you have considered it art at that point? Why/why not? It fulfilled the exact same criteria as “My bed” reached for in it's quest of becoming art and is in all accounts an emotional tale, albeit a bit cheesy. But what had changed about the artwork? Nothing, we just added a story that expressed emotion and it turned into art. To conclude Art is not defined by the artist, it is defined by the audience. A pile of laundry by itself is not art, but what surrounds the laundry is. The laundry isn't art, the laundry isn't even important in the art, it's the story that followed the laundry that is the art. It's the story that intrigues and moves the audience and it Is the story that the audience will remember when they leave. It's the story that will grab the attention of the viewer once the shear shock of the strange notion that trousers are art will fade. Nobody wants to buy “my bed” just because it's a shocking sight on its own. They want to participate in the pain the artist felt, they want to be a part of the experience. Without the story, the laundry on the floor is just another pair of pants someone forgot to pick up After the Night. Disposable, easy to forget, and will fade away once the museum reaches its closing hours.
-
CON If an art teacher is not acting professional thats not...
At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled
I have a very close friend, she draws amazing. She now started going to this art class (not in school) and she came back to me and she was very lightened up. In their art class they were told to bring something they had created, and the art teacher showed them how to make it better. He taught them painting techniques, and how you know where to put more shadows and such things. The painting she brought back after class was a very improved version of the original one. If an art teacher is not acting professional thats not ok, and they should be changed, but that is irrelevant, unless you want to see that all art teachers are incredibly unprofessional, which is highly unlikely. And I disagree with you that there is no wrong in art. Art has "fashions" times where specific kinds of arts are more accpeted and others less, some art is timeless, which is usually if you draw a painting very true to the actual thing you were capturing, nearly like a photo, it will always be amazing and treated well.
