Pro vs. con view
704 arguments retrieved in 13.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Digital art can be used (if this is the case, please...

    Art Challenge

    This is an art challenge/ debate between NiamC and Abdab. To my opponent: For each round (except the first), you will be required to paste a photo of your art (or paste your digital art ) on each argument round. In the event of the pasting of the photo/ digital art failing, please include a link of the photo in a photo album on your Debate.org page. Any media can be used. Digital art can be used (if this is the case, please include a signature in your digital work to). The art pieces can be any size. The art pieces can be on any them. The opponent must clearly state if the art piece that he/she has provided was created before this debate and was not created for this debate. I will follow all of these rules as well as my opponent To the voters: Please vote fairly and please take into account on whether the opponent's art was created for this debate or whether it was created before this debate. First round is acceptance. GO NUTS!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Art-Challenge/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.32
      art: 22.32
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 9.01 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.97)
      sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.04)
  • PRO

    There are various forms of vandalism. One of these forms...

    Graffiti is art

    There are various forms of vandalism. One of these forms of vandalism is known as graffiti. Graffiti: "pictures or words painted or drawn on a wall, building, etc." [1] Art : "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings " [2] Graffiti is basically drawings, words and more drawn or written on walls. Art can be defined in many ways. As you can see, in the definition of art, it explains how it is something created trough imagination and skill. Art can be shown through many ways like visual art. Graffiti is a way to express emotion and creativity on to a wall. Though it is illegal, it is still art. Art is also viewed as creative and spontaneous. Graffiti is a way to quickly on the spot create a message. It's like spontaneous painting, but instead of a canvas, a wall, or a sign is used. [3]Graffiti shows important messages, and feelings. These people who do graffiti are held back from art, and in result they take it out on the walls, where they are free, and don't need to follow rules. Graffiti can have various images, secret messages, and more using creativity and art to express. [4] Graffiti is a way to illegally, spontaneously express emotion, mark territory and more, using art and creativity. Ergo, graffiti is a hated, misjudged form of art. Some graffiti is actually amazing. [5] Sources: 1.http://www.learnersdictionary.com... 2.http://www.learnersdictionary.com... 3.http://www.spontaneouspainting.com... 4.http://library.thinkquest.org... 5.https://www.pinterest.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-is-art/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.25
      art: 22.25
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.88 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.94)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.17)
  • PRO

    By making it illegal are the higher powers degrading...

    Graffiti Art

    As said in the above argument graffiti is illegal, punishable by law, and looked down upon in society if you are caught commuting such acts. However through the course of history we can see that just because something is against the law does not mean the act is unjust or bad. In Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail he says "To put in terms of St. Thomas Aquanis: An unjust law is a human law not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." So a law that is preventing artists with a message, a story, a legacy to tell by putting up their art in what better a place than a wall where hundreds walk by; admire the art for what it is and appreciate it. Not being cooped inside a small area such as a private property or inside a barely visited art gallery, graffiti art needs to be free to all and to be seen by all. By making it illegal are the higher powers degrading human personality or not? The mention of the art on homes and private residence does upset me. As an artist I hold myself to a moral code, and that means not writing on private homes, cars that people use, or schools and churches. People who do this are not to be taken seriously as artist, and are looked down upon in the graffiti community. To your acknowledgement that you do like some street art ,that is great. However how much graffiti would you have seen in your life if it had not been put up illicitly? Not much I am going to guess. Without the artist back in the 70s and 80s putting up their names and pieces as much as they could over and over illegally, graffiti would have never gained popularity, and probably would be a dead medium. Those who draw penises and profanity on walls and mirrors and other things are childish, street art should be what it says, art, not childish marking scribbled on a desk. There is a difference between vandalism and art, and I hope that you can understand that.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-Art/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.01
      art: 22.01
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.65 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.89)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.15)
  • PRO

    It's just as beautiful as paintings of fields full of...

    Nude art is good contribution to the world of art

    Nude art is not the waste material of artist's mind. It's just as beautiful as paintings of fields full of flowers, full of life. It is just the same in nude art, the issue what do you use it for, is it a new addition to your art collection or it's just desire of your filthy mind, nude art is not just pornography it shows you life, but thoughts that appear in your mind make it pornography...

  • PRO

    However, many more so-called works of "art" are...

    Art that has no discernible point--Modern or Postmodern--is not art

    First let me clarify: There are several modern/postmodern artworks that I find appealing. They do take skill, and on some level they make a point. Frank, by Chuck Close, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art is one example I can think of. However, many more so-called works of "art" are everything but. I guess I can only really show you by example. I went to the Hirshorn Modern Art Gallery in D.C., and was amazed at how utterly pointless it all was. A few pieces especially stuck out. http://hirshhorn.si.edu... This is sloppy and pointless. It could have conceivably taken an hour to paint, I'd guess less. Where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art? This is compounded by the fact that the museum has 20 pieces by this artist, most of which follow this theme. No skill, no creativity. Or what about this one, by Lichtenstein, at the Minneapolis Institute, my home turf. http://www.artsmia.org... Once again, we see no point. At this link there is a short blurb, where you can see the museum's laughable attempt to give it a point. "Of Lichtenstein's various recurring motifs, the brushstroke, as depicted in this color screenprint of 1967, is among the most enduring icons of his art. In a parody of the painterly gesture associated with the Abstract Expressionists, he represents the brushstroke--the principal signature of the artist--as an object in its own right, a visual pun frozen in time and space. Placed against a field of colored dots, Lichtenstein's motif mimics the photomechanical printing methods commonly used to produce comic strips, thus reflecting both his Pop art sensibility and preference for the impersonal and machine-made image." So, it's a brushstroke, made to look like a comic strip, which shows us a preference for the impersonal. I'll ask again: where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art? I trust I don't have to give more links. I once saw a painting which was simply a canvas covered in salmon-colored paint, in different textures. Aside from the repulsive color, it had no purpose. It was not art. The Metropolitan Museum in New York is a prime example of this: they exhibited a picture of the Virgin Mary in a jar of urine. Why? Not to improve, art's true purpose, but to degrade. To desecrate. It is meant to shock. Once again, it is not art. Art, to define the term, is truth and beauty. It has aesthetic quality. It appeals. It is aesthetic. This trend in art, from Andy Warhol to Roy Lichtenstein to Pierre Alechinsky, is to move away from real art. Thanks, Sola Gratia

  • PRO

    Censorship should be exerted when it comes to written art...

    Censorship of Art

    I happen to disagree with total expression of ones feelings through art. There are many thing that should be left in the mind, for example romance or passion should not be depicted in the visual arts. Censorship should be exerted when it comes to written art as well, many poems were created with the intention of being racist. If you consider music as art (which I do) then self control and censorship should be exerted even more. I find it impossible to listen to a song today without hearing drugs, sex, or racism. This kind of behavior should be eliminated from all art in the future.

  • PRO

    It is not beautiful, it does not take skill or time. ......

    Art that has no discernible point--Modern or Postmodern--is not art

    Much of the Modern/Postmodern art of today has no discernible point. It is not beautiful, it does not take skill or time. In many cases it is meant to shock. This is not the function of art, and thus these "artworks" are not art at all.

  • PRO

    Person who accepts has to create a piece art within the...

    Art debate

    This is an art comp. Person who accepts has to create a piece art within the time limit. Any materials, any medium, any size. Ok? First round is acceptance. Instructions. Take a photo of your work and create an album with that photo in it and name the album "art debate". Send a link In the second round. Alternatively, you can just paste your work onto the debate round itself. Must be your own art piece. To prove this, take a photo of the work with your ddo name anywhere on the work. Any plagiarism will result in 7 point loss. Good luck.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Art-debate/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.89
      art: 21.89
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.60 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.88)
      sourceText: 1.16 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.03)
  • PRO

    The conscious production or arrangement of sounds,...

    Are Videogames Art

    I would like to open up, with the point that I've been hearing that there is a lot of controversy as to the object of video games being a form art. A definition of art can fall into three parts: a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. Video games are very fine examples of art, because they are usually appealing to our sight and hearing. The creators of the games are, yes trying to give us a game to enjoy, but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me. I would next like to present some examples of gaming "works of art" in terms of graphics and storyline. I saw storyline because a lot of literature is considered art and I see it that a well developed story line of a game is also a key to the game being a true master piece. Here are some examples. - The Final Fantasy Series - Halo Series - The Legend of Zelda Series - Mass Effect - Half-Life 2 - Portal Just to name some, all these game(s) all have stunning graphics [for their time] and a very gripping plot line. I think that when it comes down to it all, things like Halo 3 and the Mona Lisa have the basic thing that makes art, art. That thing is basic human creativity and intuition for beauty. I now leave the floor open to a challenger.

  • PRO

    Of course we also understand that there are people who...

    Modern Art

    With this discussion I intended to find out the majority of people who think that modern art sucks. Of course we also understand that there are people who can not understand the art itself, for example, do not know or understand the feelings and sensations that are transmitted by the traces and the colors. http://www.graphiccloud.co.uk... and do not understand what the artist wants to convey. I honestly do not think that's the fault of the artist, as a good connoisseur of art has to perceive the basics of drawing and painting.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-Art/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.77
      art: 21.77
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.41 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.84)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.14)

CON

  • CON

    Graffiti is usually letters put together. ... This is why...

    Graffiti is art

    Hi. I think that graffiti is not art. I think that if you want to do art, you should do it so it looks nice. Graffiti on walls or doors or trucks or wherever is not art. You are kind of ruining the thing if you draw graffiti. Graffiti is usually letters put together. Im trying to say that art is something that makes you feel good inside. In my point of view, graffiti makes you feel scared. Like, if I see many graffiti drawings on the streets, I think that I am in a dangerous place and should get out of there. Art, on the other hand, makes you feel like you should admire the work and stay. I guess graffiti makes places look... gangster like. This is why I think graffiti is not art.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-is-art/4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.23
      art: 22.23
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.85 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.94)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.18)
  • CON

    They DONT want art on their property. ... Why would you...

    Graffiti is art

    I. It is humiliation because its their property, and its their opinion on how they want the place to look. If they want it to look "artistic" they would do it or have someone do it. But they dont want "art" on their property. Therefore, it is humiliation. II. Ok if you ask me, I think that ruining from neighborhoods to blocks, to every single property they dont own is worse than killing thousands and saving millions to make the world a better place. III. In your opinion, destruction is art. But in the opinion who has "art" on their property, its destruction. They DONT want art on their property. Therefore, it is not art, its destructing someone's land. IV. Yes but I am saying that horror movies do make some people feel good because they enjoy getting scared. V. You can consider it art, but some people wont consider it art. Like I said before, they would consider it... a not-good thing. " Los Angeles Times supplies this bit of legal advice from former LAPD Chief William J. Bratton: "If you want to be an artist, buy a canvas." It also offers upbeat spin from Jeffrey Deitch: "We want to put out an inspirational message: If you harness your talent you can be in a museum someday, make a contribution and a living from it."" People wont consider it art if you do it on their property. VI. Going against the law is not something good. Im saying that graffiti shouldn't be considered art because if you do it on someone else's property, its jts just plain ILLEGAL. Its not courageous thing to risk yourself in jail for graffiti. And people wont consider it art if its on their property. If you really want to be so artistic, just do graffiti on a canvas or your own property. No one told you you cant have graffiti on a canvas. Tell me who did? Why would you ruin someone else's property for your entertainment?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-is-art/4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.15
      art: 22.15
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.77 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.92)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.18)
  • CON

    That something has a discernible point or not is not a...

    Art that has no discernible point--Modern or Postmodern--is not art

    That something has a discernible point or not is not a necessary characteristic of art. As my preliminary argument, I will simply argue that the term "art" is board enough to cover Modern/Postmodern art and ask you to provide an argument as to why the certain characteristic you find unappealing is enough to exclude those pieces from the definition of "art".

  • CON

    If people really want to do graffiti, tell them to do it...

    Graffiti is art

    This is my first debate too. :) I. "If I drew an ugly person to represent that everyone if beautiful no matter what looks, it would still be art wouldn't it?" Yes it would be. But you wouldn't draw that on someone Else's property because it wont look like you are trying to show that everyone is beautiful. It would look like you are humiliating them by drawing an ugly person. II. "War brings destruction, yet there is no art to it." War and graffiti are not the same in any way. War isn't illegal. When you have a war, you are trying to do it for good. What was the Revolutionary War for? How about the Civil War? This was for a good cause. Revolutionary war brought some destruction, but there was also a good ending. They got independence. The Civil War brought a lot of destruction, but it freed the slaves didn't it? III. "Destruction can also be seen as art." Destruction cannot be art. Illegally destructing someone's property is just plain illegal, not art. If people really want to do graffiti, tell them to do it on their property. IV. "Also there are horror movies, that scare people." People find watching horror movies entertaining and they choose to watch it. I don't like to watch horror movies so I don't have to watch it. They don't HAVE to watch it either. When people see graffiti art on their property, they wont feel entertained. They will feel maddened. Its people's choice to watch a horror movie. Let's say that there are these teens who draw graffiti all over a neighborhood. But how about if the community doesn't want graffiti in their neighborhood? Isn't that their choice too? V. "[Street artists] apply their skills, expression, and creativity, onto a huge illegal canvas." That's what I'm saying! They use this creativity onto an illegal canvas! If they do it on something illegal, its not art. Its illegal! Many people don't like graffiti in places that they own or places that graffiti shouldn't be. No one minds graffiti if you do it on your own house, but under bridges, on trucks, on other people's property, its just not legal. How is it art if it's illegal? In the US, smoking weed is illegal. But people do it because they like it. If someone calls it a hobby, I would totally disagree. You are using drugs. It cant be called a hobby. Similarly, graffiti cant be called art because it is illegal. VI. "So basically, I just want to explain how anything can be art, graffiti included." Like I said before, art is legal. But doing it under bridges, on other people's property, is not, and shouldn't be called art. I don't think it should be encouraged too. This is what I have to say about if graffiti is art. If its illegal, then it shouldn't be called art. Its illegal, so don't encourage it. Use your creativity on big posters and stuff. This is why I think I will win this debate. Thank you. On to you pro!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-is-art/4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.98
      art: 21.98
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.60 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.88)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.18)
  • CON

    Graffiti is not art! Some of it may be, but that is only...

    Graffiti is art

    Graffiti is not art! Some of it may be, but that is only the paintings and murals. Graffiti is what you see on the streets with gang names and code words for doing drugs or to say threats. Most drug dealers study graffiti to be able to figure out the code and where people are selling drugs based on their graffiti. Art and graffiti are two different things. Art is murals and paintings and sculptures. graffiti is gang signs and writing on walls or property in an area that it is not allowed in which is also called vandalism also graffiti is street art, that is illegal. Your turn Pro.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-is-art/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.96
      art: 21.96
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.60 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.88)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.14)
  • CON

    Vandalism is willful or ignorant destruction of artistic...

    Graffiti is art

    Vandalism is willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) So. you are destroying art, not creating art. Additionally by saying amazing you Are expressing your opinion and you are actually fueling this argument from your heart not brain. www.spontaneouspainting.com is a commercial website and pinterest is a social website. Art is, by your learner dictionary website definition, supposed to beautiful or be an idea, but you instead mess up the preexistent facade you use and block preexistent ideas.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-is-art/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.78
      art: 21.78
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.41 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.84)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.17)
  • CON

    Censorship of art is one of the only (and best) ways to...

    Censorship of Art

    I'm sorry that I missed a round, I was unable to access a computer. Others' expression through art should not be limited by your or anyone's ideology, save the creator. Censorship of art is one of the only (and best) ways to silence passionate minority groups, if all art was censored then one large group could hold all the power of expression, and that would be awful. There is no reason to censor something that harms no one.

  • CON

    But then thousands of years later some painter drew a...

    Nude art is good contribution to the world of art

    What I'm saying is that while the intentions are good, in today's world there is no way to not see it as pornography. It will either be viewed as erotica or shamful filth. If I were to throw feces onto a canvas, I could say it is art, I could view it as art, and feel no sence of shame in it. But for the public, it is impossible for them to not see it in a distastful way. My intentions where good, but no one else will see it that way. It may be art, but that does not negate the fact that people just don't want to see it. They see it as repulsive and sickening. The same principal applies to nude art, except people will see it in a sexual and pornographic context. As you said "first people were naked and were OK with that...They didn't need pornograpy... But then thousands of years later some painter drew a picture of naked woman as just a work of art and crowd that by that time was pretty sexually perverted liked that and made more paintings what later was called pornography" It is true. We didn't have a use for porn back when those parts of the body where shown publicly. But now they are sacred, hidden, and maintained as a prize to be won. People can't just have it, they have to work for it. But if you just put it out there then people will use it for their own purposes. People saw others naked all the time. People saw feces all the time. In both cases they have grown into a manner were they cannot be viewed without some kind of negative response. If the artist considers it art, and does not see it in a negative and exciting way they are more than able to keep it in their own house and show to friends or any other form of person that wants to see it, but the public simply cannot handel it. They see it in a bad way, despite the artists intentions. So for public viewing, it generally is not a good contribution as it spurs negative effects. If a private person could contain their natural sexual tendancies then I would agree that nude art is a good form of art, but people simply will not, and can not do it.

  • CON

    I went to the Oakland museum of art recently and i saw...

    Modern art.

    I see the point you are making over and over again: beauty is subjective. Ok, But I have put out multiple claims which you reject to acknowledge. Such as the the entire reason that art is created: to express beauty. Not to make a crude statement. Or that the inspiring, Uplifting, And motivational have been replaced by the pointless, Arbitrary, And purely offensive. I went to the Oakland museum of art recently and i saw this clay object (at best it looked like a warped clay pot) I was trying to understand how it even got in there since I created something similar when I was four with a hunk of craft clay. Then I saw a video of the person making it. It looked like it took a lot of effort. But you know what other pieces of art that took even more effort? Greek Urns. These magnificent pieces of art have been kept through the centuries as wonders of greek imagination. What I saw in the museum of modern art was a warped, Twisted, And mangled version of that beauty. Very fitting. You reject bad music because it is bad music. Simplicity has nothing to do with it. A simple way of putting it is as if a very bad skater fell down on the ice and got a low score. Whats happening with modern art is if that same skater demanded that their performance scored as high as the most disciplined skater. Eventually it would get to the point where training would be pointless and judging would be pointless. Everyone finds the golden ratio beautiful in some way. Studies have shown that even human faces follow the golden ratio. The $10 million hunk of stone I referred to was the piece of modern art that was just a rock. Not the David. I actually find the David to be a marvelous work of art. That would be considered as a fine example of modern art. The paintings message is non-existent but people appreciate it because its semi-realistic. I already gave you an example of what I meant by trashy. Take it or leave it. My final point is that artists have recently been lazy. They scribble on a canvas and expect the viewer to interpret it. An example of this it Robert Rauschenberg's blank white painting sold for millions. I could do the same thing in a few minutes. There is no color, Style, Or effort. He expects you to fill in that big blank gap that the painting left in your mind. Pleasure debating with you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-art./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.73
      art: 21.73
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.36 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.83)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.15)
  • CON

    quicly i will re-iterate my points 1. video games are not...

    Are Videogames Art

    forfeit eh? pity, i was looking forward to a good response. quicly i will re-iterate my points 1. video games are not quicly i will re-iterate my points 1. video games are not art because they have no value among society or moral. 2. art is imagination, creativity, and meaning. although games were created with this, the games themselves are not art. the game makers themselves are the ones who deserve the credit. 3. Games are fun. alot of peopl will look at this debate and probably think i am against video games. this is intrue, so please judge off of that. I love video games, but i dont think they quite fall under the category of 'art;. thankyou, and i look forward to my opponents refute