Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewArt Challenge (1/2)
I accept your art challenge and look forward to it as it's my first. I have no art education, no art training, no notable talent, and now 8 months experience. Before this year, I was a real estate broker. Be afraid, be very afraid. Do I wish you luck or is it like drama where I should encourage you to "break a thumb?" What's the proper etiquette here?
art is technically useful
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. We are talking about the typical form of arts, which is painting or sculpturing. ' It was painters and sculptors who allowed us greater understanding of geometry, symmetry, and construction.' Yes but geometry, symmetry, construction etc are now studied in Math. Would they qualify as art. Also building a house would require usage of all 3 skills as well. Art doesn't have a practical use, it just beautifies things. The link talks about philosophies, but they can be expressed through writings. Emotion practically doesn't have a use unless its good, and even then emotions expressed through art won't impact the watcher. Yet I don't see why paintings are still sold at ridiculous prices.
Photography is an art form
Hello, debaters. The resolution is as follows: "Photography is an art form." By "photography," I mean "the process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces," and by "art form," I mean "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." As is customary in any philosophical debate, the definitions of these terms are not fixed. They are open to discussion and change. Pro's position must prove that photography fulfills the necessary and sufficient conditions of something being a form of art. Con's position must prove that photography does not meet these requirements and is something else besides art. For the sake of fairness, I would prefer the Contender merely accept the debate and that we begin making arguments in Round Two. Let's have a civil and productive argument.
Video games are art
But, as you said "it is possible", There is nothing to stop anyone to appreciate the video games beauty as art. The design gives the form of the game, but the art style gives it a personality, like Cup Head, it's a platform game game, but it looks like a 1930's cartoon. Zelda Breath Of The Wild, it's an open world but with a cartoon style. Resident Evil 7, it's an horror game and it's realistic, with some graphic and sound elements to give the player the sense of constant danger (but RE7 at the beginning Capcom does great, but then it's predictable and eliminates that sense of danger, more like action, but predictable). And there are more art styles than these I mentioned earlier. Just to show you some games that can be considered art: Good to debate with you.
Trolling is a form of art.
Trollers be trolling. Also, I question the definitions of "trolling" and "art." Trolling is deliberately hiding under bridges to scare passers-by and not allow them passage over the bridge unless they answer your three riddles. Also, art is a man's name, short for Arthur or Artholomew, or even Art. I look forward to Pro's opening argument. :D
Video Games are an art form.
My only argument to post in particular is that art forms are specifically fine art, which video games are not classified as.
Video games are art
The games should be considered art, you need an artist or have drawing skills for making the graphics of the video games, look at the atmosphere, the characters, the enemies, look at the landscape, everything is made by draws that make the sprites or models, that make the art style of the video game, I mean, how Breath of the Wild can't be art, or video games in general? https://i.ytimg.com... http://sm.ign.com... https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com... http://i13c.3djuegos.com... Look at Horizon Zero Down http://img1.meristation.com... http://cdn.gamer-network.net... https://media.playstation.com...$ Or Journey https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... And Broken Age https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... http://www.kotaku.co.uk... No one cared. I mean, why at least certain video games can't be art, but a few scratches and scribbles from Pollock are art? I mean, if those games were the scratches and scribbles of Pollock everybody would be missing, rverybody would be losing their mind.
art is needed in todays society
why is it? its because society has YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT "our society fast-paced daily lives have made the arts obsolete - WE have forgotten to observe such little things like the arts and devalued it. WE take it for granted and forgotten to appreciate it." I SAID You use "we" implying ALL of us have forgotten art. Which i do not believe. THEN YOU SAID "first off, i never said that "we" should ALL create art" Your argument is that we need to appreciate it, we have forgotten it. is that what you mean by "we take it for granted and forgotten to appreciate it." yes? I am saying that we don't need to appreciate it. We have lives, they are filled with work, or our favorite activities. Throughout life we have been introduced to art, but like you said people don't appreciate it. I see it as you are a used car salesman. You've shown the car, they said no. They want another car and they buy it, live happily ever after. Until you show up at their door saying you should have bought the other car. People don't appreciate it, that the fact, as you stated. It is their choice, its not like they have been hiden from it their whole live and you are enlighting them.They see art. They don't care. "I dont need any evidence to prove my argument." I asked for evidence that lately there is a sudden decline in Arts, and the appreciation of it. If people have never cared, there is a reason. "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." First of all we are here debating if ART IS NEEDED IN TODAYS SOCIETY. Not if we should appreciate it. The answer is NO art is not needed in todays society. :- )
Video Games are an art form.
Thank you again for your input. You really should try Bioshock by the way, it's a classic. A:Video Games Have Goals All forms of art do have goals, but in the first round you stated only video games have goals. Not all art is designed for the audience to interpret for them selves, most have a clear purpose or idea that they are portraying. You said that the goals of video games are not up to the interpretation of the player, but this is not entirely true either. A growing concept among video games is choice manipulation, allowing the player to choose whether one thing happens or another, allowing the player th interpret which goal is more suitable. You also mentioned that a painting has no time limit, but a movie cannot be enjoyed forever, only for the amount of time it gives you. B:Deliberation If the first movie was a memory, than it isn't art, because that memory wouldn't be able to be enjoyed by others. But in that sense, the first video game could have been two men competing to see who could hit the most birds with one stone. If memories are a primitive type of cinema, any type of competition or game would be a primitive type of video game. C:Creators of Art You claimed that the audience can only observe art, but this is not true. Their are many works of art that allow the audience to interact. For example, their are books that allows the reader to make the major decisions, then lets them see where those decisions take the story. Another, but less common example, are movies that allow the audience to make the decisions. As for the observation of a game, the same ideals that are put into a movie could just as easily be put into a video game. There can be many meanings behind one game, and not always are they seen, so they are not forced. The goals of a video game force the gamer to interpret it just as much as a book or movie. These goals can actually give many more interpretations than the creator even had planned. As for the Kid and the college level book, he did not get to experience the book as much as an elite scholar would, just as a newbie does not enjoy a harder game as much as an elite gamer would. In a cinematic masterpiece, the music, graphics, and storyline are all taken in as a whole, so why are video games judged differently? If the graphics in a movie suck, then no one will be there defending it's amazing story, the same for video games. So why is Cinema a form of art, yet video games are not? To clarify, I was saying that the general public does not consider video games art because the majority of games do not hold that great of artistic characteristics. But as we all know, all forms of art have their less then appreciated side to them. According to Webster's dictionary, art is a "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation." Another definition is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination." The creation of video games falls under both of these categories. And according to the second one, "The CONSCIOUS use," says that art does not have to be originally a mistake. In fact, it says it can't be a mistake. Video games require both creativity and skill to make, so the creators should be respected as artists.
Graffiti can be art.
I had the feeling you wouldn't accept the change. I did agree to the debate and it doesn't change my arguments. Re-Rebuttal: Graffiti definition My definition for graffiti came from Merriam-Webster and, since my opponent used this same dictionary to define vandalism, I would believe my opponent's arguments against my definition being "false" are unjust. Since my opponent didn't provide a source for his/her definition I feel that it should be disregarded and not only should my definition be set as the definition for this debate, but all my opponent's arguments used with the other definition should be considered opinion and disregarded. Rebuttal 1: "The obvious answer as always. And as always, completly false. Graffiti is also a form of art, drawing letters into a specific shape in order to make it more appealing. Because of such, if someone were to draw graffiti on a piece of paper, not only is it art, but legal." I have no idea what my opponent is saying in the first two sentences. However, for the rest of the statement, according to the definition of graffiti, it must be on a public surface to be considered graffiti. a piece of paper is not a public surface and therefore a drawing on a piece of paper is not, by definition, graffiti. Rebuttal 2: "Art is vague" This first paragraph has no basis behind it and should be considered solely an attempt by my opponent to increase the broadness of this debate more in his/her favor. Since there is a definition, this debate should follow by this definition. My opponent does not have the right to change the resolution of the debate by trying to claim that art can't be defined. If my opponent wanted to use his/her personal made up definitions then they should have been stated in his/her opening statement. According to the definition of art, "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." The significance of graffiti comes from the cost to the tax payers. San Francisco spends $20 million dollars a year on graffiti removal.(1) This causes the city to have to tax its innocent residents for crimes they haven't committed and to remove drawings and writings that they don't want. It also lowers housing values in the neighborhoods. Therefore any significance from the drawing has to be greater than the significance of it simply being vandalism needing to be removed. That picture provided is nice. However, my opponent has not proven that this picture is "graffiti". I went to the site provided and it doesn't mention it being unauthorized. This could be an authorized mural. The following website is a building in the Mission District of San Francisco that is a mural, not graffiti. These types of works can be found all over the bay area and are considered art. http://foundsf.org... However, Costing innocent residents $20 million dollars a year, plus the loss of value of their property, is not appealing, beautiful, productive, or any of the other parts of the definition of art. That $20 million a year, is just the city of San Francisco. That doesn't count the costs in Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, or any other cities just in the bay area or throughout the country. Rebuttal 3: "Graffiti is different from vandalism." "Whereas vandalism would be: "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" [2]" I accept this definition for vandalism because it was reliably sourced. This definition of vandalism is almost the exact same as graffiti. Because graffiti is unauthorized drawings, it is therefore malicious destruction of public property. Therefore, my opponent's contention is false because according to the definitions, graffiti is always vandalism even though vandalism might not always be graffiti. "Though graffit can be used as vandalism, it isn't always. It is used to make posters, to draw for art class, to have fun with. Because of such, it can be art. Therefore I have already upheld my side of the resolution "graffiti can be art"." Once again, since this does not fit the definition of graffiti, this should be disregarded. Drawing on a poster for an art class is not an unauthorized drawing on public property. Conclusion: It is unreasonable for me to explain every piece of graffiti ever made. Since it is more reasonable for my opponent to simply show one piece of graffiti that could be art to disprove me, the burden of proof falls on my opponent. Because my opponent did not provide a single example of a piece of art that actually fit the definition of graffiti, my opponent has failed to prove that "graffiti can be art". I have proven that graffiti cannot be art, but is rather a selfish act of vandalism that will only have negative results on the community. It forces the community to clean up after others rather than spending the money on community centers, or other services that could improve the lives of its residents. I personally offer a math and science tutoring service for low income students here in Oakland and all expenses come from my pocket because the city is too busy cleaning up after these vandals. However, if they weren't spending that money, I could possibly do group sessions at the local community center and not have to pay for it all myself. (1) http://www.sfdpw.org... (2) http://foundsf.org...
