args

Video Games are an art form.

Thank you once again for the debate and thank you for a timely response. A: Video Games have goals You stated that all forms of art have goals, and you listed the Odessey and the Titanic as examples. When you listed these, I think that you may have misunderstood my argument. With the Odyssey and the Titanic, the goal can be interpreted any way one chooses. For example, in the Titanic, one might interpret the goal to be for the Titanic to sink. Others might think the goal is for Rose and Jack to fall in love. With all forms of art, it is up to the observer to interpret. In video games, this is not the case. If you do not interpret the video game in the sense that the video game created sought it to be, i.e. getting passed missions, then the video game does not proceed until you have accomplished this goal. Often times, there are even time limits on achieving these goals to further encourage doing the missions at a faster rate of speed. You can sit and look at a painting for hours and interpret it in all sorts of ways, but if you don't take the bomb to the checkpoint in 60 seconds in a video game, it'll blow up in your face. B: Deliberation You brought up cinema and photography as examples of things that could not happen in nature. This is not true. One could say the first movie was the memory of an event that took place. What was that memory? A series of picture played in the mind in a certain order that recalls the event. Thus, recalling the first time one drove a car would be an example of cinematica art. Same applies for photography. C: Creators of Art Once again, I believe you may have misinterpreted my argument. When I brought up this point, I was not refering to the numbers of creators. Allow me to try and explain it again. In standard art forms, the creator creates and and the observer observes. But in video games, the creator creates and the observer (gamer) can both observe (play) and interact (create) with the game. This differenciates video games from standard art forms, for video games allow the user to change and interact with the game, but standatd art forms do not allow the observer to change or interact with the art form. I like your argument about the perspective of the painting, but that does not go as far as to decide how the observer inteprets the painting, as does the game creator force the gamer to interpret the game. Also, the goals of a video game force the gamer to interpret it the way the creator wishes. In the examples provided, you mainly discussed the entertainment value of standard art forms, but video games have a measure of how entertaining they are to the gamer as well. Also, a kid can read a college level novel and interpret it as gibberish (we all know we tried when we were little lol), but in a video game the same kid needs to accomplish goals, i.e. interpret the game as the creator wishes, to continue to observe and interact with the game. I'm sorry to say that I have never played Bioshock, but I am an avid player of Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. It's graphics, and the graphics of other video games, may be interpreted as forms of art, but that is seperating the graphics from the sounds, gameplay, storyline, and other aspects of the video game. Seperatetly, they may be considered art forms, but video games are a bundle package. By throwing all of the aspects of art in one package, it disallows video games to be a form of art. I would also like to ask you to clarify why you brought up that all forms of art have their 'crap'. Yes, its true, you and many others would consider video games to be the newest forms of art, but the fact is that their not. Video games are much different from the standerd art forms, and though their individual aspects are forms of art, the bundle package defeats the purpose of an art form. I stand in firm resolution that video games are not forms of art, and thus urge the voters to vote Con.

art is needed in todays society

First off, our lives ARE fast-paced. But you have provided no evidence that a STEADY DECLINE of art previlence has occured over the years. If it has always been this way, there is no problem. You use "we" implying ALL of us have forgotten art. Which i do not believe. The reason some have "forgotten" about art is that we don't need it. We have lives, and families to worry about. With inflation and rising cost of living, we must spend our time with work and things to pleasure us on off time. If "We" don't do art, than it doesnt matter. We don't gain.

art is needed in todays society

Greetings. First, I would like to thank my opponent for extending this debate to any member of this website. With that said, let us proceed: In my opponent's opening argument, he commits the fallacy "argument ad baculam" in claiming that all of society will be doomed if it does not involve itself with art. His claim is no more than a scare tactic as there is no evidence to suggest that society will be dommed without art. In fact, the human body needs many things to survive, but certainly not art; the human body needs food, water, oxygen, and nutrition, but it certainly won't be doomed due to the lack of art. The second problem with my opponent's opening argument is that he presents no evidence that art is even needed in order for a society to maintain itself. The third problem with my opponent's argument is that he presents no evidence that art is on the decline in today's society. Not only that, but there is actually evidence against his claim. Both video games and films are important part of our culture. Proof can be seen in the fact that the entertainment is one of the most thriving industries in our society. For these reasons, you should vote against my opponent's case.

Picture Art is no longer a job.

I will first respond to my opponent's rebuttals, Then move onto reconstructing my contentions. My opponent has responded to my criticism of his limited scope by pointing to the fact that Tumblr and DeviantArt are two of the most major art websites, And that because they are in decline, The profession of art is in decline. Well, Even if we are to ignore the fact that Tumblr was never designed to be an image sharing website for artists, We can see a flaw in these examples: they were never supposed to be reliable sources of income. Although DeviantArt has donation pools, Its primary purpose is as a sharing platform, A type of social media for artists. It is incorrect to assume that just because a sharing site is in decline, The profession as a whole is. Instagram is a photo sharing site. Let's assume that it started failing; does that mean that private photography studios around the world are also failing? What of the photographers which were already successful before Instagram, And would still be successful after this collapse, As many DeviantArt artists are? I asked my opponent to not look at the failure of these sites, But instead broaden his scope to the profession as a whole, Or at least where the money is. He has failed to do so. In my previous argument, I gave my opponent some reasons why people still buy art today. Although there are more reasons than the ones I mentioned, The responses my opponent gave to the ones provided were unsatisfactory. 1. In response to people buying art to decorate their homes, The proposition asked for a statistic that new art was being brought. The opposition has given a clear statistic of the Art Market increasing by 12% this past year, Which shows more people are buying art and appreciating it. More statistics will be given in the reconstruction. 2. In response to website design, My opponent has stated that they imagine that the "only art any website would need is a logo" and that the usage of templates would be enough for minor websites. Two things for this. One, There are more artistic aspects to a website than just the logo. Buttons, Fonts, And layouts are all part of website design, And many pay artists good money to design and craft more than just a logo. Two, In regards to the minor websites, Who makes the templates? Artists! Wix, A template website, Has a team of professional artists which design new templates each month. This response is only backing up the opposition's side. ' 3. In response to me stating that people pay artists to see their ideas in reality, I apologize for vagueness. I was referring to how writers, Game engineers, And other creative people often pay artists to work on long term projects to see their characters or worlds in reality. If we take a look at Japan, Light novelists often reach out to animation studios to see if they can get their characters in an anime or at least drawn for the cover. My opponent's response to my counterargument on originality is half-hearted at best. He states that although an artist's work is "far from lazy", He would hardly call it original. This is a subjective standard of the opponent. To be honest, It was incorrect on both sides to assume that they could label "originality". A better response to this would be to realize that even if art IS lacking in originality, If it sells, It is still a valid profession. The opposition would request voters to ignore the arguments of originality on both sides as it not relevant in how art is a profession and thus outside of the scope of this debate. My opponent's response to my statistic is to again point to the two websites of Tumblr and DeviantArt. Again, Just because these two individual websites are failing, Does not mean that art as a profession is not valid. My opponent has provided no satisfactory response in regards to this. My opponent's response to the contention of an artist being well paid for his work was that it "doesn't debunk the argument that it is dying". The opposition is very confused as to why it would not be the case. If a profession pays well, Doesn't that mean that it is still a valid job option? There is no logic behind this rebuttal. In regards to my contention about how art is evolving, My opponent has stated that it is irrelevant to whether it's collapsing or not. I would like to know the reason why. A profession that can adopt to the societal and technological changes a society goes through over time is bound to stay healthy. I would request my opponent to look at this contention as more than just "art reverting to the web" and instead focus on the artistic developments in both technique and mediums that are emerging yearly. Given that my opponent has not reconstructed any of his original arguments, I will take it as he has given them up to the opposition. Now to reconstruct my initial arguments: 1. There is still a huge audience for art. Despite what my opponent may think about art dying because DeviantArt and Tumblr's popularity is declining, Statistics say otherwise. In addition to the 12% rise in the Art Market which my opponent failed to respond adequately to, The opposition would like to also point out to how the median income for artist in the US according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is $53, 400. In other countries, Such as Korea and Japan, This number is higher. The total number of art sales is estimated to be about 64 billion this year alone. The opposition has now proven that there is not only still an audience for art, But that the income from art is livable. 2. The profession is evolving and changing. As mentioned previously, Art is a very flexible profession. In addition to the huge shift to the internet, New artistic techniques are being developed or rediscovered all the time. Take for example Kintsugi in Japan, Or the art of breaking a bowl and reattaching the fragments with gold or silver paste. This technique has resurfaced in recent years, And Kintsugi artists receive very livable incomes because each piece is so difficult to make. This is only one example of many in how art adapts to trends. In the place of traditional artists we see new artists with different techniques, Different mediums, And different uses. 3. An artist is well paid for his work. The opposition has already answered the counterpoint to this claim. The statistics provided in contention 1 are direct evidence that being just an artist is financially feasible, Which is the heart of this debate. If artists can survive by just producing art, There is no need for part time jobs as my opponent has claimed in his introduction. My opponent has stubbornly held onto his view that because art sharing websites are dying, Art as a profession is dying. My opponent has also inadequately addressed the economic statistics and logic that the opposition has provided (which is what the heart of debate should be when discussing job feasibility) while pointing to arbitrary and subjective views of originality and reasons for purchasing art. Because of this, I would like to request all voters vote for the opposition.

Art rules.

Your argument is essentially that Art is awesome. However, not all things that are awesome, rule. That makes your argument invalid.

art is technically useful

No, I think art is not useful as beauty is not instrumental. Pro has to prove that art is useful and is a necessary practice.