args

Is a pile of laundry art? Challenging an earlier debate

I'd like to thank my opponent for the challenge and hope for an entertaining debate. I'm sorry how long it took me to respond but unfortunatly the challenge arrived during my finals and I had a lot of real life duties to attend to first. Defining the terms In order to be able to discuss this topic to begin with we must first find a definition on what art is and define the terms. This not only does this help us clear up the debate and express our arguments but it also keeps us from debating semantics and derailing the debate. Assuming my opponent has no objections (if she does she should come to an agreement with me via PM or comments before posting her next round. Posting without objecting or reaching an agreement signals that she agrees to these definitions) Art MASS NOUN] 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. Works produced by human creative skill and imagination Pile of laundry: Both the literal meaning along with any art that does not require skill, effort, imagination nor originality, “lazy” art. Art and Artforms (introduction) There is a lot of debate on what “art” is. Art can be subjective, objective, emotional, moving, imspiring, require creativity and skill of the artist... or apparently a group of belts pinned to the wall. To avoid repeating myself I already defined and discussed the definition and objectivity of art in the debate my opponent cited, and as such this debate will be an extension of that debate. In the last debate I went over the idea that not everything is art, and that any form of art should require skill, require originality, imagination or be able to awaken a predefined set of emotions. My opponent has challenged the notion that a pile of laundry is art and in his case she pointed out this artwork I will tackle this in two ways: The first, lesser, way is that this isn't a pile of laundry and as such isn't lazy art as I described it, but more importantly, this isn't the art. We'll get there. Lazy art requires no thoughts When I first discussed lazy art I referenced to this artwork as a pile of dirty laundry. This takes no thought (I checked, there isn't a back story as far as I could tell), it took absolutely no effort and it by no standard is art. To prove that I went into my closet and recreated the artwork. The longest time required in its construction was the time it took for me to upload the image to DDO. [After the night, Oculus_de_logicia] Is this, by default, art? It's a pile of clean trousers, boxers and socks. There is nothing artistic about this and It took under half a minute creating it. In contrast to “my bed” that did require thought, effort (Have you ever carried a bed ? That thing is heavy!) and is intended to awaken emotion, instead of the usual “I nailed belts to the wall, now give me money!” Emin is trying to invite us into her life and her depression at the time which is incredibly brave of her, and it required an artistic mind to try and express that in such an unorthodox way. Her art may not have required skill per say, but it was intended to awaken emotions. Thus we see the contrast between my “After the Night” and “My bed”. However, this is only part of the explanation why “My bed” might be considered art. The other part is, the art is all in “My” and not in “Bed”. Let me explain: The story is the art let's circle back to my bed. Scroll up and look at the image of the piece. Let's assume that there is absolutely no story behind it. Nothing to cry over. Just imagine you're in the museum and stumbled across it. Would your first reaction honestly be: “Oh, that poor artist, I can just feel the depressing sorrow radiate from that piece, how she lay there hours and hours on in her own torment during a sad period in her life.”? I'm sorry if I am mistaking, but I am going to doubt it. Your first reaction most likely will be: “what the fritz happened here?” it's not until after you've read the description that you start to understand why the bed is as it is: and you by no mean will consider it to be art until you've received that back story. From that we conclude that the art is directly bound to the story that is attached to the artwork, that on its own my bed isn't art but a messy undone bed. In comparison to the Sistine Chapel we can admire it by the pure emotional power it awakens within us without a back story, the skill it required to both build and paint it and the overwhelming knowledge that it took 4 years to create it. So, without taking anything away from Emin and her art style we can see that her art, in this case, has no power on its own. We need the back story. To fully understand and appreciate it. Because art is defined by the audience, as stated in the former debate, my bed would not be considered art without the story as the audience cannot read the original intention, they see a bed where she sees pain. For instance: let's go back to “The Night After.” We'll all agree that this isn't art, all right? But, what if this note was attached to the wall next to it?: After the night Oculus_De_logicia This artwork represents the inner turmoil that occurred within the artist the last time he wore these pants and boxers. It was a dark evening and he had gone out with his sweetheart, his fianceé and lover of 4 years. It was dark and cold when they decided to leave the diner, a bit intoxicated but happy. They crossed over the street and into their own neighbourhood. They had let their guard down as they enjoyed their total euphoric experience that followed the loving presence of each other. Without warning the artist heard a heavy sound of a car engine over the chilling wind. He turned around and witnessed a man, driving a shining red car, speed towards them. The artist looked at the car as it speed toward them, and before he could react heard a shearing scream. The next thing he knew was his bloody hands wrapped around his lover as she gasped for air. the red car speeding away from the scene. The next hours came crashing down on him the ambulance delivered them to the hospital. As he witnessed the love of his life fade into the hands of god he felt as all life had been struck from him as well. His last memory of the night was how he stumbled home, dropped his trousers on to the floor and entered the most void and heartbreaking depression that he had ever felt, the trousers remaining on the floor for days to come. Now, assuming you had seen this in a museum and not the internet; would you have considered it art at that point? Why/why not? It fulfilled the exact same criteria as “My bed” reached for in it's quest of becoming art and is in all accounts an emotional tale, albeit a bit cheesy. But what had changed about the artwork? Nothing, we just added a story that expressed emotion and it turned into art. To conclude Art is not defined by the artist, it is defined by the audience. A pile of laundry by itself is not art, but what surrounds the laundry is. The laundry isn't art, the laundry isn't even important in the art, it's the story that followed the laundry that is the art. It's the story that intrigues and moves the audience and it Is the story that the audience will remember when they leave. It's the story that will grab the attention of the viewer once the shear shock of the strange notion that trousers are art will fade. Nobody wants to buy “my bed” just because it's a shocking sight on its own. They want to participate in the pain the artist felt, they want to be a part of the experience. Without the story, the laundry on the floor is just another pair of pants someone forgot to pick up After the Night. Disposable, easy to forget, and will fade away once the museum reaches its closing hours.

At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled

I have a very close friend, she draws amazing. She now started going to this art class (not in school) and she came back to me and she was very lightened up. In their art class they were told to bring something they had created, and the art teacher showed them how to make it better. He taught them painting techniques, and how you know where to put more shadows and such things. The painting she brought back after class was a very improved version of the original one. If an art teacher is not acting professional thats not ok, and they should be changed, but that is irrelevant, unless you want to see that all art teachers are incredibly unprofessional, which is highly unlikely. And I disagree with you that there is no wrong in art. Art has "fashions" times where specific kinds of arts are more accpeted and others less, some art is timeless, which is usually if you draw a painting very true to the actual thing you were capturing, nearly like a photo, it will always be amazing and treated well.

Money wasted on art works is absurd

Now, I shall go over my opponents attacks, then I will review my own case and close. First of all, I would like to ask my opponent to refrain from swearing. Seriously dude, you don't need to curse to prove your point. My grandpa is an artist, and I don't think he has ever been wealthy. Well lets go back to the importance of value. An artist spent 20 or so years making a wonderful work of art. Many people see its value and want to buy it. This work of art is like the artists baby, you could say. It seems like the art and the artist are almost the same. They feel as one with another, or so the artist feels. Even though they need the money, it would still be kind of hard to part with your creation. That's why the price is so high. The value of the creation to the creator is almost too high to part with. The guy that dug up the old painting did not create the painting. Therefore, any intelligent person and good willed person would give it to a museum or the artists family. But selling it would just be stupid. That would be like if you gave your teacher homework that isn't yours and has a different name on it. If you are not a credible source you won't get an exchange of value. Also, why do you think that anyone who likes art is a filthy rich scum bag? I like art and I can see the symbolism in it and I can barley afford my own car. My opponent seems to have failed to defend his point on graffiti. Sure, you could find a way to bootleg sell it, but that just diminishes the value. Also, the only gang signs I see are offensive. Its not like a gang is going to be a happy group of people that does community service by drawing cool gang signs. In fact, they are quite the opposite. When you are in an all out war with the police and other gangs, I don't think you will be spray painting very nice things. Obviously, my opponent decided to remain in ignorance and not view the painting from a different perspective. My opponent is not looking at the true value, he is looking for some kind of amazing thing that you can see from a glance. For example, If my opponent were to look at a fork he would see a pointy metal thingy with no value at all. But, obviously, we all see a fork to be a tool of great value when we are enjoying a meal. So, what I'm trying to tell my opponent is that you can't come down to a conclusion on something just from seeing one point of view of it. You need to see all sides of the story to properly comprehend the value of something. A majority does not decide what is good or bad. Your conscience does that. And who said that most of the majority believes in your opinion? I don't need some rich dude to tell me what symbolism is in a painting because I can find it for myself. If a rich man told you the sky was yellow would you believe him? Of course not. When we talk about symbolism in a painting, we don't see it there because a rich man said it was there. We see symbolism because we have eyes of our own and consciences of our own to see it for ourselves. We aren't as idiotic as goldfish. When I gave the book example, I wasn't specifically talking about the grammar. I was talking about the value. If people see that your trashy book doesn't have value, they won't buy it. The same goes with your trashy painting. You can lie all you want, But any intelligent person could see that you have no value for your painting and that you are just trying to make a quick buck. People have done that too. Its called con selling and usually only easily led people fall for it. Yet again, my opponent has decided to remain in ignorance when it comes to the Mona Lisa. I'm not giving you random reasons, those are the actually descriptions and characteristics of the painting. I advise you to actually look at the painting instead of jumping to an ignorant conclusion. Also, its not considered plagiarism when you are influenced by something. In fact, it has nothing to do with plagiarism. If I read an inspirational quote and was influenced to do something good, should I be charged with plagiarism. No. Plagiarism, is to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas. Artist can use some of the great techniques used in the Mona Lisa for their painting, but they can't copy Mona Lisa entirely and say that it is their own. And for some reason, I guess painting is all about women for some reason, according to my opponent. What I said was that the Mona Lisa uses mathematical and artistic advancements that were never used before. So that's why the Mona Lisa was such a great addition to culture and history. Many paintings have already been photocopied and mass produced. Including the Mona Lisa, which sells at $5.02 dollars now on amazon. It seems like my opponent has completely ignored the importance of value also. Sure, a book a unique, but anyone can write a decent book. But it takes more talent to create a work of art. Also art includes many emotions that can't be expressed through writing. They won't let you touch the paintings because they are very valuable and rubbing your grimy hands all over them shows that you have no respect for the value of the painting. If you went there just to touch the paintings and not to experience the true values of the works of art, then you truly are a victim of extreme ignorance. You can't really give money to dead people, sorry to tell you that. But before an artist dies he/she usually entrust all of his/her works of art to someone he/she knows will take care of it. Art is a time traveling device for all. The guardian isn't an opinion, it is just describing what the painting is symbolizes. It's not sarcastic at all, you're just viewing it in a sarcastic way. It doesn't imply in any way the the painting was a waste of money either. The caveman did give true prices, but it did give the opinion that they are "Ridiculous pieces of art". The caveman circus isn't as much of a credible source of information at the guardian is either. But anyways, I guess we aren't debating on whose source is better, so I will just leave it at that. I will now review my own case. Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance. 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. Contention 2: 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. I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the the negative side of this debate. Art is a very important and valuable part of our culture that we should recognize and respect instead of ignoring and despising it. I would like to thank you for your time and for this debate. I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate. Sources: https://www.amazon.com... Here is my grandfather who was an artist. http://www.deseretnews.com...

A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists

If our standard for art involves official certificates and price tags, how do we avoid the corruption that comes together with money and official business affecting whether the art is judged fairly? Such a process can hinder art as much as it can support it. Secondly, Beauty is a subjective principle. Order is just as ugly to some as Chaos us to others. The mystifying aspect of beauty is that it cannot be defined as anything except that which appeases the mind. If all art were predictably beautiful, would beauty continue to be the most sought after experience in art/life?

Separate the art from the character or personification of the artist

Rebuttal: So I'll start this off by saying the inherent flaw in the substantive put forth is simply in the mischaracterization of this motion. When we talk about separating one's art from one's self WE ARE NOT inherently talking about that art not being enjoyed. I believed that fundamentally art is an extension of the artist and as such any art must be viewed with the context of the artist. THIS IS NOT TO SAY that the art mustn't be viewed at all because of the artist. I think the distinction is really unclear in your argument. I think that art is a matter of influence and perception. It is impossible to, As imperfect beings, Remove oneself from one's work. I believe that as such any form of art is by extension influenced or a figment of the artist's perception. They are innately interlinked. But even then, What I'm really trying to get at is that art shouldn't be removed from the artist because context, Or the artist, Can many a time change perception. Take Louis C. K as an example. He, And I quote from the NYT, "cornered two women and masturbated in front of them with no consent and used that moment in his comedy show". Now I'm not judging you for watching this, Or even for finding it funny. I believe it is quite ostentatious why having the pretext of Louis C. K's character can help change how you view that particular show or segment. You want to talk about R. Kelly? He has a work of art called 'I see nothing wrong'. I'm not saying that the song is bad, And shouldn't be liked. BUT IT IS important to know the roots of the song, Specifically the dark confession of his heinous acts pertaining to it. Just to summarise, Viewing art by a bad character is not wrong. I think it is fine to enjoy Louis C. K's jokes, Or R. Kelly's music. However, Since expression is an extension of being, And that context can really shape the underlying message of any work of art, It is required and shouldn't be disregarded.

Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art

Who determines whether something is too disgusting? It is also hard to separate a piece of work’s artistic merit from its impact. It is perfectly possible for a work of art to display great technical competence, and yet fail to have an emotional impact on its audience, and so as a consequence it seems most sensible to allow, display and fund as wide a display of art as possible. Limiting the forms of art that we display or give funding to those considered ‘artistically meritorious’ will result in the loss of innovation in the art world: if we only encourage those pieces that are ‘good’ under present-day metrics, we lose those pieces of art that, though considered controversial, or ‘not art’ now, may in the future be considered masterpieces (e.g. Picasso’s Guernica). 

Is Graffiti Art or Vandelism? WHY ? x

I think that grqffiti is an art in itself ! I know that garffiti looks messy when people just tag, but when people do amazing art work, i kow that it is vandelism but i think it looks amazing.I know many people have different views to me , i want to know what you think !

Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

I concede that yes art is based on perception but everyone believes in art in on form or another. Art can be defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing" - Websters Dictionary Everyone finds something beautiful or appealing so it exists if only in a persons mind. To say that art is non existent is ignorant.