args

Graffiti Art

You have made a lot of great points and I don't have a great rebuttal, however I still stand firm in my beliefs that true graffiti art is not a wrong against the world. You would have to be a street artist to understand it, and for now I forfeit.

Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

I agree with the statement 'Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art'.

Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

I agree with the statement 'Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art'.

Everything can be Construed as Art

Resolution: I contend that everything/anything can be construed as art. Format First round is acceptance. Second round is arguments. Third round will be rebuttals. Fourth round is for answering to rebuttals and conclusion. Definition Definition of Art will not be given, as the very definition is what is being debated. No usage of dictionary will be allowed as an argument to define art. Also merely pleading to authority will not count as an actual argument unless supplemented by the debater's own reasoning and thought. Requirements and Rules Be respectful. Refrain from forfeits, unless a personal situation arises, in which case Con may argue in the comment section for the round. No trolls. There are no other requirements.

Skull art challenge

This will probably be my last art challenge for a while- summer holidays coming up soon. My opponent and I will post 2 art work pieces- the theme will be Skulls. To specify "Skulls", I mean - http://en.wikipedia.org... To my opponent and readers, The rules are that: The art pieces presented by me and my opponent, may only of their own and may not be plagiarised from someone else. Violating this rule will result in loss of conduct points for that person. No digital art may be used (to help prevent instances of plagiarism). Any media/ materials may be used The theme of the art pieces have to mainly on a skull/ skulls. The artwork may be any size or colour. 1st round will only be acceptance- please do not post art work in the 1st round. In the event of an opponent or me forfeiting a round in the 1st, 2nd or both rounds, the other person can withold the right to not present a artpiece in that round or consecutive round. The opponent and I shall take a photo for each of our artpieces, and select one for each round. The images of the artpieces shall be pasted in that round, or the opponent may post a link in that round to a photo of that art piece. If my opponent is unsure, please refer to this link to see what I mean. http://www.debate.org... For voters: Please vote fairly. I have changed the settings so that anyone can vote, but I expect that all votes are sensible and are legit. In the instance of vulgarity or uncivility being presented by any side, that person shall lose his/her conduct points. In the case of bad grammar or spelling, please do not vote against this as grammar/spelling is irrelevant for this debate/challenge.

Bioshock is a work of art

Video games as art The digital graphics involved in making a video game employ all the traditional forms of art: shape, color, design, lighting, cinematography, style, sound, and music. Think about it: the formal aesthetic principles used by and expressed through video games are exactly the same as those used in other more traditional artistic mediums: images, conceptual art, film, poetry, and music. Can we seriously and consistently entertain the idea that video games, as a medium, cannot be art? It seems more reasonable to say the video game is and can be a medium of artistic expression: the videogame-medium provides, as do other artistic mediums, a framework for the possible creation of art. This does not mean all video games are art, just as no one seriously thinks all images, films, and music are art. But it does suggest that some video games could be art. In addition to the purely formal, many video games offer interactive fictional worlds whose content often aspires to the status of art. Whether this fictional content is considered artistic or not depends on the particular video game in question, but there is little doubt that literature, story-telling, and world-creation, are mediums filled with artistic possibilities. Does anyond doubt Shakespeare's King Lear or Hamlet is art? Likewise, if the narrative of a gaming-world dramatized and reflected upon the human condition in insightful and surprising ways, would anyone doubt the video game's fictional content would be art? I think this much is clear, the parallel between video games and other artistic mediums -- in both form and content -- suggests a set of compelling reasons to believe video games can be a kind of art. To further appreciate a game as art, consider the difference between a video game like Bioshock and a traditional game like Chess. Chess does nothing art does, whereas Bioshock (as I hope to show) does everything good art does. Ask yourselves: if a game does everything art does, is there any reason to deny the game is art? Bioshock as a game The game begins with the player floundering on the surface of the ocean, the only survivor of a plane crash. Coincidence or not, the plane crashed meters away from the bathysphere station that transports citizens down to Rapture, and as players descend and the city comes into view, a recording of Andrew Ryan's speech (replicated above) plays. As readers may already know, the speech mirrors the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, which is further implied by the partial anagram between the two names. What players discover, however, when first entering the city is anything but the idealized city described in the recording. It turns out the lack of moral restriction, coupled to the astonishing hubris of the city's inhabitants, has brought about utter ruin. The player learns that a genetic manipulation technique intended to bestown supernatural powers on its users led to Civil War, and its users (termed "splicers") turned violent and psychotic. This sets the ground for the game's primary objective: escape from Rapture. Bioshock as art Early in the game the player-characer confronts Big Daddies and Little Sisters. The juxtaposition of the Little Sister, a cute little girl, with her monstrous protector is at once surprising, strange, and beautiful. It is here that we see the art of Bioshock first emerge. Players are confronted with rescuing the Little Sister or harvesting her; if you harvest her, you get double the ADAM, which enhances you abilities and makes you stronger. The obvious, rational choice to make is harvesting the, and Atlas, the leader of the revolution in the city, assures you the girl's are not human. He says: "Somebody went and turned a sweet baby girl into a monster. Whatever you thought about right and wrong on the surface, well that don't count for much down in Rapture." The choice seems obvious, as a gamer. But the choice, of course, is made harder by the Little Sister herself, who repeatedly calls you an "angel." Personally, I couldn't bring myself to harvest the Little Sister. I saved her, and the action was accompanied by incredibly evocative scene in which I realized, at the moment my emotional attachment and investment in the game-world became exposed, that this was what the game had intended: the Little Sisters use our emotions to defend themselves. At first, I kept questioning myself, but I kept saving the Little Sisters. It seemed right, and everytime I saved them, it game an emotional high. This is the first time, in my experience of any fictional-world, that my emotions were self-directed. Think about it: in Shakespeare's plays, the characters elicit our sympathy and pity and other emotional responses, but they are always passive emotions because we are not actually involved in the fiction. Bioshock choreographs scenes in which we play a central role, and hence, the emotions are directed towards ourselves, feeling either good or bad about what we do. What is so uncanny about this is that the self-directed emotions challenge our ability to play the game rationally. We allow "monsters" to defend themselves through appeals to our emotions. We experience emotions in the game in a new and suprising way, that itself is in dialogue with past works of art. The Big Daddies evoke fearfulness, the Little Sisters sympathy. Each character and scene is designed to challenge our rationality and our emotions, as the game forces us to be active participants rather than distant observers. And the moral consequences of Little Sisters has barely been touched on yet. Notice that in most games, characters that elicit the sympathy and psychological response that Little Sisters do are completely absent. In fact, in most games, innocent women, children, and the elderly are usually not found. But in Bioshock, all are characters that force the players to make moral deliberations and reflections, which are themselves offset by their rational need to survive and escape and their emotional commitments. What is art, if not a fiction that explores all these aesthetic and philosophical elements and performs them in the viewer? Now, we come to the most artistic aspect of Bioshock: the way it thematizes freedom and the linearity of videogames as a medium. At first, the game creates the illusion of freedom by allowing players to move around freely and do what they want. Of course, players are given objectives, but the feeling of freedom is absolute. The tension between freedom and control, however, becomes manifest what Atlas tells you: "Would you kindly head to Ryan’s office and kill the son of a bitch?" Suddenly, the player-character is killing Ryan, and it is outside the player's control. Before you kill Ryan, he reveals: "The assasin has overcome my final defense, and now he's come to murder me. In the end, what separates a man from a slave? Money? Power? No, a man chooses, a slave obers. You think you have memories: a farm, a family, an airplane, a crash. Or was it hijacked, forced fown, by something less than a man? Something bred to sleepwalk through life, until they're activated by a simple phrase spoken by their kindly master? Was a man sent to kill? Or a slave? Come here, stop, would you kindly? "Would you kindly?" A powerful phrase, a familiar phrase. Sit, would you kindly? Stop! Turn! A man chooses, a slave obeys." In this revelatory scene, the player discovers their true nature, as Ryan takes control by uttering the trigger phrase: "Would you kindly?" The game thematizes the player's subconscious desire for freedom in a game-world that has already determined every action the player will do, from beginning to end. The most powerful moment in the game arrives when Ryan commands you to kill him. The player realizes that their role in the game-world, as a lived and experienced narrative event, is no different than the passive observer seen in other forms of art. Out of space, will continue next Round discussing this scene.

programming is art

Programming is a subject most often lumped in with engineering or science, and there are countless books dedicated to writing better code, but is this a good approach? To me, it seems much more reasonable to understand it as a form of art.

Should art be taught more seriously

Do you really think that art will never be used? Because I think that art is one way to show your emotion. And you don't have to show your painting or art work you can let the art speak for you. Also, everybody has a different type of art and its the teachers job to show the the wold of art

Brevity Debate: Art is essential to society.

Thank you. "We have art in order not to die of the truth." -Nietzche A society without art is a society that is devoid of meaning. Art takes many forms, but ultimately, art is the language of human emotion. Art is how we intelligently express our feelings. Creativity is the core of human expression, and human ingenueity. Art is what seperates us from most animals. If we attempted to remove art from society, we would become a society of animals that life only to satisfy day to day urges.

Video games are a serious art form.

Since we are on the subject of advices I'd like my opponent to know when someone is providing actual debate arguments and when they are talking metaphorically or in imagery in order to wrap up or emphasize the actual argument. I'll get to that in a moment. Let's get on to rebuttals. In my conclusion I intended to give a broad overview over the effects of art, but the initial definition of art, unchallanged by my opponent, still stands as an argument video games can fit under. In the first example he states that video games, just because they are interactive, are not art. That art must be unchanging. I strongly oppose to this notion for a number of reasons. interaction Firstly it implies that digital art is the only interactive art medium, which is not true by a long shot. Interactive art has existed for thousands of years, and the most basic example is theatre in which the audience can choose between several separate endings or plot devices when the actors prompt them to. Same can be told on certain novels and some films. Other medium, books for instance, leave the ending to be open and giving the reader a choice on how to interpret the story: such as Life of Pie[2001]. Poems are also vague and open to a lot of speculation and interaction from the audience and thus are changing viewer from viewer. a lot of art has utilized the audiences as a part of the art and/or produces different results and artistic forms depending on the time and position of the person viewing the piece. To say that art must be static and unchanging is incorrect in a plethora of ways and in no accepted definition of art will you find that to be a requirement. It also implies that because of the interactive medium it always has a way to manipulate the narrative. This is also incorrect. No matter how often you'll play trough a game you will in most cases end up with the same narrative, the same ending, the same events. The game developer envisions how the story unfolds and there is little the player can do to change that. He has a little wiggle room but only as much as the developer wants him to have. Dear Esther[2012] for instance gives the player no room to affect the narrative, it is arguably the least game like video game ever released, focusing entirely on narrative. The audience, just like with other art, can only interact with the art as long as the developer wants them to. No matter how quickly you managed to play trough Silent Hill 2, no matter how many corners you cut, the main ending is still the same: the storyline is still what the developer envisioned, you're still experiencing an artwork as the artist intended. The desire to beat the game is just the same desire as wanting to read the rest of the book. You want to see how the story unfolds, you want to see what happens next and how it all ends. The missions are a bonus, as before noted. Interactivity is not something art can not posses, and the fact that we must use a set of rules to advance the game does not exclude it from being an art. I can create a game that places heavy critique on human society and in fact a lot of games do that, intentionally or not. Remember, A video game, as with art, is whatever the artist wishes it to be. Not only does art not have to express no meaning at all and still be art (The Mona Lisa for instance portrays no message) but it can just as well be art on the base on the pleasure it brings to the viewer. Video games are programmed to do what the designer wants them to do: If he wants to portray a message, so be it. Co-operation of art Firstly, yes, Music has been influenced by video games often.[2,3,4]. As has other medium of art[round 1 and source 5]. However I would like to note at this point that art does not have to be able to influence other medium of art. My opponent did deny he said that, but I'm afraid he did. “Video games do not influence art forms.„ That is anabsolute statement. You said, without any room for changing, that video games are incapable of influencing other medium of art. Even if we where to accept that this was an exaggeration it is still incorrect. I'd like to note that video games have influenced film culture, produced countless films, comics, merchandise, artistic videos, each other, and even reached into science and biology (sonic gene, WOW plague, pikachurin e.t.c). paintings have been made after games and so on and so forth. My opponent then attempted the following two points: All music is instrumental It is tempting to drop this for music requires no form of vocals to be art: otherwise you're dismissing next to every single musical piece ever produced. The entire classical era, the orchestra he himself used as an example, four seasons by Vivaldi and so on . Listening to for instance the piece I linked does not reveal that it is a video game track, but could be considered artistic on its own. Music is intended to set the tone of the environment, just as real music intends to set the mood for the listener. It deserves more attention than an elavatior tune as it changes the game completely. Turn the audio off for a game and play it. It is not the same experience, just as watching 2001 without sound does not create the intended effect. About the 5 star orchestra, I'm dropping that, as it was an exaggeration to emphasize the quality of the tracks, not a literal comment that I was unable to tell the difference between the two. On the visual note: Does it have to do so? Is it comparible? This is art, painted by Picasso: You see that it is not the same style and arguably the same quality as The last supper. I still find it to be art. But in what way is Braid not art? Here is a tricky one: is this a screen shot from a video game or eastern painting[7]? The rest of the arguments: The “offer art to your door” was emphasize, not an argument. Dropped. Films entertain you. Why are they less of an art? Books entertain you, poetry entertains you, pop music entertains you, they are all medium for art in your definition. So far every single unofficial definition of art you have brought is fulfilled by several video games, this one included. As good as refuted. The point with Heavy Rain was to show that games can and are often emotional, they often have the power to make players question their own choices, to think and wonder what would happen if they where in that situation. I've cried over a video game, I've been strung along like a puppet and I've been immersed into a single dictated feeling the game wanted me to feel. Art has the primary objective to be able to make a player Feel or Think. Games can do that, just as all other art medium can. Suddenly the con suggest that games are not a High artform.So, it's an art form, but not good art? Not only is this indirect concession to the debate, but it is wrong. So far the only thing my opponent has done is comparing what he thinks are pinnacles of other art medium, a cherry pick that really is worthless in a debate. The great gatsby is a great book, all right. How about Twilight? Is there still no other game better as art? How about Modern art where a blue canvas and white line is art? Would you not agree that Flower Is a much more enjoyable title to relax and look at? How about anything C.L Dean does[6]? Is the Last of Us really a lesser art form? either all books are art or none in that logic, and so it is fallacious. Art is not a fixed boundry: con has failed to disprove without doubt that games are art: and in fact I have shown that it is an artform in its own right and methods, with the ability to fit all definitions. Art is art, visually, skillfully, imaginative and audiovise: Art is the expression of skill, thought, emotion and ideas, and games are no exception when it comes to creating the vision of the artist. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.1up.com... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...