args

Censoring Art Is Dangerous

What side prop fails to acknowledge is that people are generally reasonable, which is why governments empower people to make choices that could harm them, because we expect every adult to be able to make informed decisions, and most of the time we are proven correct, which is why most people are not criminals. The harm that propositions logic has is that they do not realize that depending on the person listening to the song, we could have completely different interpretations of what the song means. This is because art is intensely personal; the emotions that art evokes are completely subjective, so one cannot simply assume that once someone hears a misogynistic song, they will be compelled to oppress women. For example, a lot of feminists maligned A Clockwork Orange for being exploitative to women because it depicted a lot of women being raped, but most people appreciated it as a warning against a society that was depriving people of their humanity (1), metaphorically turning them into cogs in a clock. This movie won four Oscar nominations, showing that gratuitous violence can be acceptable in society, and that we are capable of reading between the lines. So the question becomes: how exactly will proposition determine which songs are worthless and which are not? That is why censoring this music and any form of art is never a good idea. We can never really know the value of a work of art to different individuals, so it would be wrong to ban it unless we can determine a real harm, but as we have proven, the only harm that has been demonstrated by proposition is completely assertive. Music audiences have repeatedly proven that they do not take lyrics literally as the popularity of songs like Blowin’ In The Wind by Bob Dylan would suggest, or Yellow Submarine(2) by the Beatles. (1)http://www.mouthshut.com/review/A_Clockwork_Orange_-_Anthony_Burgess-55646-1.html (2)http://www.lyricinterpretations.com/Beatles/Yellow-Submarine/2

Video Games are an art form.

Ok, just like to say thanks for accepting this debate and let's hope it's good. First of all, I would like to get rid of a preconception a lot of you might have. I am not saying all video games are art, because they aren't. This is naive and is a gross misunderstanding of the debate. This does not however mean good video games cannot and are not art. It's just Call Of Duty isn't art, same way Rebecca Black's "Friday" and the assorted sub-standard Michael Bay films aren't. First of all, video games are art because they allow the creators and the players to express themselves. My example will be Halo Reach in this case. Most people will think this slightly strange, but, as a whole, Halo Reach is the story of a doomed planet, and the brave men and women who defended it. The campaign tells of Noble Team's tragic and final hours, and even the multiplayer levels show the tombstone of a dying planet on their walls. What's more, with game modes like Invasion, you really get the sense that you are part of a war. And sometimes that's the art in these games. They are an experience, in this case of a future war against a seemingly unstoppable foe and with tragic consequences. Secondly, video games are adept at handling themes, as they not only show you, in most cases, flawed ideologies, but they immerse you in them and make you feel like you are being affected by them. This is an immersive way of getting people to understand complex philosophies: they are put into a world ruled by a chosen philosophy and shown how it has turned out. My example in this case is the Bioshock series. The first Bioshock is based on objectivism, and it is concisely summarized by Andrew Ryan's famous speech "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?". Instead of lengthy sermons, it gives you the dystopian world of Rapture, and shows you the terrible consequences of this flawed concept, like charities and religious freedom being banned. Also, in the upcoming Bioshock Infinite, the themes of racial purity and American exceptionalism, in the floating city of Colombia, which was originally a showcase of the best of America, but has become another dystopia. Thirdly, video games can make emotional experiences and moral dilemmas infinitely more intense by making them interactive. I will use two examples here: LIMBO and the Mass Effect series. LIMBO is a perfect example for this topic, as not only is it a hauntingly beautiful piece of art, but I can also say, without a shadow of a doubt, that it could only ever be done through video games. LIMBO is a game where you play as little boy, who wakes up in a hostile world filled with horrors. LIMBO is a beautiful piece of art, in a big way because it lets you draw your own meaning from it. The only information we are given by Playdead is "Uncertain of his Little Sister's fate, a Boy enters LIMBO". In this world, you encounter many dangers and hazards, and many strange, unexplained encounters, and it leaves you to draw your own conclusion from the events. Mass Effect is also another piece of art only possible through this interactive medium. In the Mass Effect series, you play as Commander Shepard, a soldier who must prepare the galaxy for an invasion from a unknown species who live in dark space, and come out every few thousand years to wipe out advanced civilizations. Mass Effect is a game about conflict. Conflict between species, factions and people, and you are expected to resolve these conflicts so as to repel the Reaper invasion. The thing that makes Mass Effect unique and, quite frankly amazing, is the way in which you interact with the world. You can talk to people in whatever manner you choose, try and persuade people to do what you want and, in it's strongest moments, the game forces you to make terrible choices. For example, in the first Mass Effect, you must decide whether you let a species known as the Rachni, who just attacked you, live, in the hope that under their queen they will turn to your side, or kill them, and make sure they don't kill anyone again. It is a tough decision, and you must make it. In a movie, the hero would make it and you would just think "Oh, I would've done it differently, but I guess that's that". But in Mass Effect, you are forced to decide the fate of the galaxy. Similarly, in Mass Effect 2, if you don't prepare your team sufficiently for the final mission, some of them will die. This was a heart-wrenching experience for me the first time I played it, as I made some bad decisions and a large amount of my team got killed. In a movie, you would feel sad that they died, but in Mass Effect, I felt a personal guilt, as I knew if I prepared properly, they would still be alive. That's what Mass Effect does. It gives you a sci-fi epic, and makes it personal and interactive. I have listed my main points above, and I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguement. Good luck and remember guys: Keep It Clean. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... WARNING: Spoilers below for Halo Reach Halo: Reach ending: http://www.youtube.com... Bioshock Intro: http://www.youtube.com... Bioshock Infinite Demo: http://www.youtube.com... LIMBO trailer: http://www.youtube.com... Mass Effect Rachni choices: http://www.youtube.com... Mass Effect 2 gameplay: http://www.youtube.com...

art is useful outside career field

Perhaps you indeed have a point, although in the modern world, art is meaningless to some. But art is still a hobbie and you do not need the skills to master it or even give it a try.

Problem, there shouldn't be standard becuase everything is art

Everything we see/hear/feel/create, well, 'everything' is art where God or the clock-worked universe is the artist. All skills are art All creation/destruction (indocti discant) is art. Cave paintings were/are art. Good/bad writing is art. To claim that something is not art because it does not fit some pompous criteria/standard is an elitist realization of Marx's Bourgeoisie, who standardize art(where/when there are no 'real' substantial definitions of beauty/art) to keep themselves rich and the proletariat poor. Posthumously commercially exploiting (poor proletariat)artists like Vincent Van Gogh; to keep themselves rich.

Money wasted on art works is absurd

Gap in manufacturing and sale value Modern, alive artists have become damn rich. Furthermore, if the money is not helping the original, dirt-poor creator, why does selling it justify such a price? The guy that dug it up from the dead artists home has not invested much time or money, yet here you go, 20 million for you. Height of nonsense. Graffiti 1. Gang signs look pretty cool actually. And the offensive ones are the reason why it is illegal and termed vandalism. 2. Reason given above. 3. They can sell photos of it, or take an impression of fresh, spray-can paint. Or they could do it on their own damn walls. Blank Blue painting with a line is hard-work and symbolic? Furthermore, art work of famous artists is trash according to the majority, but the rich autocrats use "symbolism and other trash" to justify their senseless purchases. Buy my trash as well. I have another book that I created for about 5 years, it has good grammar at least, come on, pay up a few million. Know my next project? I will make a cross on a canvas, make up some symbolism about it, maybe it represents good forces being trapped by evil and the outside help unable to penetrate the boundaries made by evil, and lie that I spent I life-time on it (not all artists do that, but then you never know), get a few friends to vouch for me and become a mega-millionaire. You wait and see. Mona Lisa is just the painting of a woman. Stop giving random reasons. So what if it influenced other artists? That should be considered bad, for plagiarism and the unoriginal ideas. Wouldn't it be better that artists cook up their own painting, song, and book from their own inspiration? I think so too. I don't get how technological advancements and a woman are related, unless you are a lost romantic. X-box, games, books, movies are art available to the masses. Why not the same with visual art? I want to lower the value. The value for it has been set far higher than it actually should be. X-box already has a few million copies, so there. It can't be even more mass-produced as it needs metal and electrical components, and is a difficult as well as a costly manufacturing process. But since we have many tons of newspapers, photo copying art shouldn't be that costly. A book written by hand is unique. Why not sell it for a few billion? It gives all the things (culture, history, symbolism) that art does. It is a completely unique story and a great experience. Yet you still typed it out and sold millions of copies of it? That is exactly what you are doing with art. Why not mass produce the paintings and sell them to the masses, rather than giving history only to the filthy rich who won't share, or to the museums that charge us much more heavily on their tickets, and are not open all the time? The art museum charged me about 10 dollars just to view the painting. They don't even let me touch it, even if I say I will not damage it. Shouldn't I have not gone there at all? Contention 1 Art is not important/valuable as it most artists have not suffered or worked for their art, nor have they created anything great. And the fact that the money doesn't go to the dead artists like Picasso and Vinci, but to filthy rich art merchants. Contention 2 Art will be a time-travelling device for the extremely rich, which is not fair. I recommend mass-producing the paintings through photocopy and selling it, while the original gets a much cheaper public exhibition for all. There are many more devices of history, such as history books, this debate and other data on the internet, other novels such as autobiographies, music and sometimes realistic movies. Art is not an efficient device for conveying history, for a blue canvas doesn't seem very historic, and while invisible art may be hoax, I don't get what those people were looking at in the photo. The guardian Why does the source seems to be rather sarcastic???? It seems to imply that it was a waste of money (now you get why I hate symbolism). Besides, it but expresses an opinion that the painting was good, and we are not supposed to consider the word of media as absolute. Caveman It says don't take their word for it. Yet, the blue painting price was true. If you bother to verify the others, you would find that they too had the same price. My sources http://www.theverge.com... (million x-boxes made and sold)

free admission to art museums

I think it should be free because It is just some art for view, To look at you should not have to pay in especially for looking at historical animals, People etc.