args

Art is faulty by definition.

Again, you are setting a standard: Art 'has to be' aberration/erroneous/vagabond/exotic/provocative/different/unique/reflective-of-human-error. That claims agrees with the proposition's point of view that 'anything & everything' should not be called 'ART'.

free admission to art museums

Have you ever heard of TANSTAAFL? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In order for art museums to be free, You would need to give a way that There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In order for art museums to be free, You would need to give a way that In order for art museums to be free, You would need to give a way that art museums would be funded.

Illegal art should be made accesible

By saying that illegal art should be accessible you are just encouraging people to loosen the definition of what constitutes art to cover a lot of inappropriate or obscene material. How are you going to make it accessible? By having special, physical galleries for housing this banned art? or opening special forums on the internet, what sort of art do you think should be accessible, art like Bill Hensen's child photography/pornography? There is illegal art that violates copyright laws that are set up to protect intellectual property, is this the sort of art that you think should be accessible and if you do make this accessible, doesn't it just spit in the face of the offline codes of legal and moral practice that protect artist's rights to show and profit from their own work? You need to define what exactly the illegal art that you are trying to popularise is because alot of material could fall in the category of "banned" or "illegal" art and alot of this material is banned for good reason, child pornography is banned and one of the materials completely banned under internet censorship even, so if someone takes your argument and calls it art, does that mean we should throw it on a website or in a gallery and let people be educated by it? Publishing and popularising material like this is not justified by suggesting it stimulates debate and discussion, the debate and discussion can occur without some of these offensive "art" pieces being legitimized by being displayed and accessible, as is evident by this debate itself. Limiting access to obscene or offensive material is hard enough to regulate without the ability to just limit people's access to physical property today considering the digitisation of almost everything on the internet, encouraging access to something so loosely defined as "art" or "illegal art" will be problematic and give an opportunity for people to abuse the system.

Money wasted on art works is absurd

"In my own philanthropy and business endeavors, I have seen the critical role that the arts play in stimulating creativity and in developing vital communities.The arts have a crucial impact on our economy and are an important catalyst for learning, discovery, and achievement in our country ""Paul G. Allen, Co-Founder, Microsoft I will be arguing against the resolution that money wasted on art works is absurd. Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance. Everything has value. So in order to obtain anything, you have to realize the importance of value in anything, especially art. If you want to obtain art, it is going to take something of equal value. I will now give two contentions that support my case. Contention 1: Importance. Importance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means value or significance. Art is a very valuable thing because many artists have suffered for their art. It took Michelangelo 26 years just to make the statue of David. Do you think he would want to sell David for just a couple of bucks because it's "absurd art"? Of course not. So when we are paying for something like art, we exchange it for equal value. If the artist spent as much or more time on their art as Michelangelo, then I believe they should get a very high price for their art. Contention 2: History. Art is literally a definition of a culture. Our art will be a time traveling device for people of future times. It will show our history, culture, and families. Because of this, art is very valuable. If it is destroyed, our cultures and histories are destroyed. So that's why it is sold for so much money. You can't just give art to anyone off the street. But if someone is willing to respect it's value by giving up equal value then you know that person can be trusted to protect our histories and cultures. Thank you.

Should art be taught more seriously

I will accept the challenge with the assumption you are referring to a more serious art programme in school. As a kid who grew up with possible schizophrenia, clinical depression, post trauma and autism; my response will be quite odd. I have never had any artistic ability and the only form of "art" I could manage, per se, was cartography, et caetera. Albeit, I wasn't interested in art in the first place. The issue with teaching art is that what you teach, more than likely, will never be used and could only penalize and hold back unfortunate students. If you are as interested in art as I would assume, even you should understand that art is something not learned but something that comes to you naturally. If it is being forced, there is a problem. I would even go as far to say that art should be purely optional.

art is useful outside career field

Exactly. Outside the career field, there isn't much use of art today. As you said so, visitors cried due to the feelings expressed by art even though they didn't do art, so that rules out the use of art to a critic. 18-20 century art was popular because there were good artists that did good work. But suppose if I make one of trashy paintings or video clips, what sue will it be to me? Unless I have the skill, art is not useful for me. And if I have the skill, I would make it my career field or develop my skills by choosing it as a career field. For non-artistic people, art has no significant use in their life.

Contemporary Art is becoming more perverse and repulsive than the art of previous eras.

While it may seem that contemporary art is becoming more perverse and repulsive (in some cases it is beyond true) it is all based on whether the audience accepts it as art. Repulsive art could be a political statement, where the artists are not afraid to make a statement. It could also be a representation of how they feel, (I'm sure we all had days where we feel icky inside or depressed or even had dark thoughts run through our minds) and these artists are able to capture that moment. It takes a lot of creativity (or maybe even not enough).