Pro vs. con view
704 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    It is true that art does not harm any one, but morally...

    Censorship of Art

    It is true that art does not harm any one, but morally speaking wouldn't it be better to subjects like racism, violence and nudity out of art. Such things could be detrimental, and offensive to others. As far government regulation, I totally agree that they should not regulate art. We all know what happened in Russia for the longest time. If the individual wants to express his emotions and feelings in a controversial way, I would suggest that he do so in private or chose another medium.

  • PRO

    So when you say there's not standards at all, You're...

    Modern art.

    Art is subjective. It's totally based on opinions and my opinion is that modern art is good. So that makes it your word against mine. How do we decide between the two of us. Standards are just opinions that people tend to follow. Everybody's standards are different. So when you say there's not standards at all, You're speaking for the whole world, Which you can't do. So what you really mean is that the art doesn't fit YOUR standards, AKA, It's your opinion. The artists who create modern art do have standards, You just don't agree with them. Define Trashy please. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, That is an objective fact that you cannot refute. "art should not be made to express a statement" That's just your opinion, Unless you can find a reason why it's immoral to do so. "Beauty is transcendent" You mean like god? If that's what you're saying then produce god for me and then I'll accept this claim.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-art./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.68
      art: 21.68
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.32 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.82)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.15)
  • PRO

    In this debate, we will discuss whether graffiti is art...

    Graffiti is art

    In this debate, we will discuss whether graffiti is art or not. My opponent will be going against me, and in favour of graffiti not being an art. First round is acceptance. Please don't troll.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-is-art/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.65
      art: 21.65
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.28 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.81)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.14)
  • PRO

    If you would like to debate me, please comment or PM me,...

    Art debate

    Haii I've been doing a bit of sketching lately, and i was thinking, hey, how awesome should it be to do an art debate?! So I did this. As of right now, i made it pretty much impossible to accept. If you would like to debate me, please comment or PM me, and I'll decide.... Structure: First round, acceptance. Second round, people. Third round, animals. Last round, anything you wanna do. Rules: 1) if you forfeit, win automatically goes to other person 2) art can only be drawings or paintings or watercolors, so like, no sculptures or photography or stuff like that 3) art can be pre-done, doesnt have to be drawn/painted on the spot 4) must include username (or abbreviation or actual name) somewhere on the picture you take of the art. Many thanks! Good luck to my opponent and have fun!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Art-debate/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.63
      art: 21.63
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.35 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.83)
      sourceText: 1.14 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.00)
  • PRO

    Erich Fromm Now continuing the previous contention's line...

    Loving is an art

    I thank my opponent for accepting this debate! As a brief road-map, I will be offering Definitions, framework, and finally arguments. Also as a clarifying note; through the course of this debate I will often quote the late German-American Psychologist and Social Philosopher "Erich Fromm" Citing, and expanding upon ideas expressed in his book "The Art of Loving" = Definitions = 1. [1] Love: "Immature love says: 'I love you because I need you.' Mature love says 'I need you because I love you.'" 2. [2] Art: "A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. = Framework = Obs1: The resolution states "Loving is an art" Since loving is in the present-perfect tense is present, we must assume that "Love" excludes fleeting moments of affection, (Immature love) as immature love is not one that ceases once a need is satisfied; but is instead in regards to unrequited love (Mature Love), since mature love is not a love that changes depending on the needs/desires of the individual at the moment. Obs2: A divide must be made between love and affection. While love does encompass affection, affection does not necessarily encompass love. Affection is the feeling part of love; whereas love as a whole is a much more complex entity. Obs3: the BOP in this debate is a reciprocal one, I as the pro must prove that Loving is an art, and my opponent must prove that loving is not an art. = Arguments = Contention 1: The justification of love- There are many stages of love, an many different types of love. Ranging from brotherly, to motherly, to romantic, and beyond. And each different kind of love has certain stages that must happen for mature love to take place (i.e. the present-perfect tense of love) through practice, and patience an individual can become immensely better at these actions; thus it is an art. It is also important to note that some different types of love do require certain stages; for instance motherly does require a "falling in love" process, it is a form of love that simply given. Falling in love The easiest stage, in fact it's an uncontrollable part, it does not happen at will; the moment when it seems as though a boundary is broken and two individuals are brought together and are closer to one another. In brotherly love is takes the form of a friendship, in romantic love it takes the form of a relationship; but all the same this stage of love is near purely affection, The art of it comes in later Maintaining love through a difficulty Here is the bulk of my argument, the driving force as to why loving is an art; Where it just a passing feeling and nothing more, there would be no reason to reconcile a difference when a problem occurs. The two would go their separate ways and the love would die. In the case this happens, it is not mature love but immature love as the two in the friend or relationship where in such for their own benefit; thus I am not bound to defend this. However in the case that any action is taken to reconcile the damage between the two people; it has now become mature love. and also through this action of restoration, loving becomes an art; something that is a skill developed across time, and continual practice of the art. Contention 2: The artisan continues the art- [1]"If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism." -Erich Fromm Now continuing the previous contention's line of thought; if all prongs are met for mature love to take place, but the love is only directed towards one person; it is not truly love, but a symbiotic attachment. In which case I am not bound to defend this manner of love as it does not fulfill the perfect-present tense that the resolution specifies. "Just as love is an orientation which refers to all objects and is incompatible with the restriction to one object, so is reason a human faculty which must embrace the whole of the world with which man is confronted." -Erich Fromm If loving is not an art, but simply something accessible by any-one at the drop of a hat, then the same love must also be accessible towards any other person. However we realize that this is not the case, we realize that to be able to love all is a fairly hefty deed. It is something that requires practice, and repetition; it is one that requires the individual to continuously put aside their own needs and desires. It requires one to not seek to be loved, but to seek to love others. Thus in conclusion, I see no avenue in which love (not the passive, immature, "love" or more rightly called affection) cannot be considered an art. Vote Pro! =Sources = [1] Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" [2] Google Dictionary

  • PRO

    But other people might like simplistic lyrics or they...

    Modern art.

    You said "the entire reason that art is created: to express beauty. Not to make a crude statement" You're assuming that. People make art for all kinds of reasons. Some people do it to make money, Some people do it to send a message, Some people want to be famous, Etc. That's just what you think it should be for. Art is subjective. If there was transcendent beauty, We'd have proof of it. You said "You reject bad music because it is bad music" No, I reject certain music because I don't like it. I do have objective standards, But they're based on my opinion. I like music with lyrics that I think are clever. But other people might like simplistic lyrics or they might have a different definition of clever. "Everyone finds the golden ratio beautiful in some way. Studies have shown that even human faces follow the golden ratio" This is categorically false. This would assume that everyone in the world is aware of the ratio and if there was something in the world that people universally agreed upon, It would be headline news. "The $10 million hunk of stone I referred to was the piece of modern This would assume that everyone in the world is aware of the ratio and if there was something in the world that people universally agreed upon, It would be headline news. "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. " My mistake. "My final point is that artists have recently been lazy" You can't possibly know that. Just because their art looks easy, Doesn't mean they didn't work hard on it. Good debate.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-art./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.45
      art: 21.45
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.08 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.15)
  • PRO

    get ready for my next one = size. ... I look forward to...

    Art Challenge

    OK, here it is. I don't have a caption for it . This is rather small art piece (A4 size). I used pen and water colour. P.s. get ready for my next one = size. I look forward to my opponents art piece, http://www.debate.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Art-Challenge/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.43
      art: 21.43
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.09 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.09)
  • PRO

    Firstly, I would like to point something out. ......

    Are Videogames Art

    Thank you to philosphical for accepting my debate. Firstly, I would like to point something out. "GAMEMAKERS "but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like Firstly, I would like to point something out. "GAMEMAKERS "but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like "GAMEMAKERS "but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me." video games in themselves are not where the creativity and imagination spark from. the creators of the game being the ones who put forth all the creativity are the ones using imagination and creativity." When I stated they are allowed boundless opportunities, they DID refer the game creators, themselves, not the game. I never in any said that the players were artistic for viewing and playing said games. "While the people who made them game used a form of art in making the game by being creative and imaginitive, the game in itself does not provide a form of productivity or, seemingly, a specific influential point. For example, everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning.meaning Every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life. Although games like halo and final fantasy did have alot of imagination and creativity used in them and are very fun, they pose no specific point or influential benefits." Not all art, in said case, does have meaning. Take for example, the painting called "Cash Crop." This painting is simply a picture of a couple of houses and trees, with rows upon rows of housing areas in the background. Now, don't get me wrong this is a very nice painting, but my opponent says that ", everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning. Meaning every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life." I don't see how this painting holds any beneficial point or helps humanity learn anything. "When and if a game pertained to the inspiration of mankind other than the destruction of it, it could be used as an example of 'a piece of art'. however this is not the case with games such as in all the games you have listed." As you say, that a game is pertained to the inspiration of mankind rather than the destruction of it, that may be true. If you truly think though sometimes disaster brings out the best in us. For example I will take the game "Mass Effect." The main problem is that an army of synthetic robots led by a rouge agent are trying to resurrect an ancient destructive force known only as "the Reapers." As humanity's and probably the galaxy's only hope, you defy the odds. Also take into not that humanity, in game, is very young in the galactic age, and most of the other species revere them as insolent and incompetent. When the Reapers finally attack, though, all the species ban their forces together and take one final stand as one peoples to defy a god. I know that I said not all art has a lesson, but in this case and in many others, both in real life and in video games, it has. In Mass Effect it is that when disaster strikes, it brings out the best in people and sometimes even rivals join forces to do what's right. Thank you for reading - TSM

  • PRO

    Thank you, mostlogical, for accepting the debate. I would...

    Everything can be Construed as Art

    Thank you, mostlogical, for accepting the debate. I would first like to contend that art is a product of life. I say life and not humans, because I do not wish to exclude other animals the capacity for creating or experiencing art. I would like to note that there is a distinction between creation and experience, and that art is not exclusive to the former or the latter. This distinction is important to note, as art in the case of the former is an artifact or craft that serves a purpose, be it aesthetic or practical, while in the case of the latter, art is not created by the agent experiencing it but still serves an artistic experience. An example would be a person deriving meaningful, aesthetic value from a painting or in nature itself. The question is then, what constitutes an artistic experience, and indeed, goes back to what art is in its essence. What is essential for art to be art? I contend that it must have creative capacity for the agent to derive meaning. Art is an expression, it is a concept that lives within the mind. Science and mathematics are both arts in their own rights, but they have no objective existence outside the human conception and interpretation of the world. We cannot find numbers in physical form, numbers are just concepts and interpretations of what exists. I contend that art follows the same form. Without human beings, or living creatures with the capacity for art, art ceases to exist. The Mona Lisa cease to be a beautiful painting and becomes a piece of paper with paint on it. Thus, those with the capacity to experience art is essential for the existence of the art itself. Herein lies my argument. I contend that art is subject to the mind's experience, not the hands that make it. To further illustrate this point, allow me to give a hypothetical example. Let us say that an artist crafts a statue, and people derive an artistic experience from it. Surely, we would qualify this statue as art? Let us then say that this same statue that people perceived was made by a man was in fact a product of nature. Would it at that moment cease to be art? Is then art maintained by the illusion that human beings crafted it? To bring up an old cliche, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so I contend it is with art. At the heart of things, artifacts are merely manipulations of already existing, natural elements. What makes these elements suddenly becoming art is not that human beings have touched it but that human beings have the capacity to experience it as art. If there was a block of marble untouched by man, does it become art the moment man marks it with a chisel? Does the mere dent suddenly become art? Art has no limits, and that is because the creative activity of making meaning or finding it is limitless as our imagination. Thus, anything/everything can be construed as art. Art is applied by the creative mind, and not the hands that sometimes does its bidding. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.

CON

  • CON

    I accept this challenge. ... I will be using one piece...

    Art Challenge

    I accept this challenge. I will be using one piece of art that was not created for this challenge, as I think it is a similar style to NiamC's art work and would make a good comparison.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Art-Challenge/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.59
      art: 21.59
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.28 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.81)
      sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.04)
  • CON

    We can't justify some and condemn others. ... There are...

    Graffiti Art

    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 [sic] : 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." What an atrocious example. Dr. King was an advocate for equal rights for all races. He was breaking down barriers in our society-- trying to get blacks and whites in equal schools and desegregating bathrooms, careers, and drinking fountains. He wasn't fighting for the right to trash bridges and houses for art's sake. Graffiti doesn't "uplift human personality." Trying to compare civil rights to street art is horrid. "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." You say that as if the law has kept anyone with a story or art from sharing it. Did you know that for thousands and thousands of years, we have been sharing our stories and art in legal areas? In books? On canvas? Commissioned in churches and other places of worship? All in places where they were acceptable and unintrusive. Graffiti is a relatively new art form (note: Not a new activity, a new art form), but an illicit one. Painting on the sides of buildings that are private property has always been seen as a disagreeable activity. "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." Yeah, because everyone wants to see the word "PENIS" written on every bathroom stall for the sake of art. ("Well, I don't support vulgarities on public property.") Who and what is to decide what is appropriate for graffiti, and where? We can't justify some and condemn others. The only thing we can do is make it legal to display your art on your private property and show it in museums. "By making it illegal are the higher powers degrading human personality or not?" Are you asking me? No, higher powers aren't infringing on our first amendment rights and degrading our human personality by making graffiti illegal. What about the rights and human personality whose property has been defaced with some spray-painted eyesore? Graffiti can negatively affect the person whose property is harmed. People who don't want to see it are affected. Is this all for the sake of saving one person's artistic vision? "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." Everything you just said offends you as an artist and that it looked down upon in the graffiti is exactly what graffiti is by definition. That's ridiculous. What makes graffiti better? That it's on a building or a bridge that belongs to the state and not a private residence? What's the difference? It's defacing something that isn't yours. It's criminal activity regardless of where it's at, and you have yet to explain what exactly the difference is or why it's forgivable in one area and not another. "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?" Fair enough. But how many curse words and offensive jokes would I have not seen in my life had it not been put up illicitly? I don't want my kids or even my parents to see the stupid vulgarities in the bathroom stall, on the sides of trains, and displayed on the sides of buildings. If we make graffiti legal, we are not simply giving every person with a story to tell a canvas, we are justifying every stupid middle schooler who thinks swastikas are funny. If we keep it like it is now, legal in private areas, we are letting everyone who wants to see the art see it. Legalizing it all over just makes people all over, even those who don't want to see crudely drawn penises on buildings, subjected to it. That undeniably degrades everyone's human personality. "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." But what gives you the authority to declare what is and isn't art? I don't think Andy Warhol's vibrant paintings of soup cans is quote-unquote art. I think it's ridiculous, pretentious tripe, in fact. But the world tends to disagree with me, and on it goes being proclaimed as true art. I'm sure others feel the same way about Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Van Gogh. What makes anyone's opinions on what's art valid? I'm sure there are some who feel that penises and swear words on desks are art, too. Nobody has the authority to say it isn't. "There is a difference between vandalism and art, and I hope that you can understand that." Care to define where exactly that differing line is? And how you judge that? And how anyone can judge that? And what makes an artful penis on the side of a building better than the crudely drawn one right next to it? There are millions upon millions of opinions on the topic, and no one can declare which is more valid than the other.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-Art/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.57
      art: 21.57
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.21 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.15)
  • CON

    during around the renaissance period, Each artist sought...

    Modern art.

    Ok, Well said. during around the renaissance period, Each artist sought the highest quality attainable and they improved on the previous generation of masters. Nowadays art seems to be only about making a statement, Which in tern leads to bad art. Art standards are not objective. The golden ratio is a great example of transcendant beauty. I don't know a single person who does not find flowers beautiful. The golden ratio is everywhere and has existed since nature has so it is a universal standard of beauty.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-art./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.57
      art: 21.57
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.20 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.15)
  • CON

    for example the painting "cash crop" does actually have a...

    Are Videogames Art

    ok to start out, my opponent mentioned that the painting "cash crop" does not have a meaning to it. being that this is a semi-famous painting, it holds a certain significance among humanity. alot of times though, the meaning of a certain painting is hidden, and left for the viewer to discover. for example the painting "cash crop" does actually have a meaning to it, if looked upon it from a wider perspective. here is what another view of the art work "cash crop" analyzed: the ohio valley is the most productive farmland in the world. This has contributed to the strength and power of Chicago as the Corn Ftures and Commodity of the world. Without compromise, the agriculture strength is depicted in this piece by the background of ten thousand dollar bills. The artist uses rich abundance of vibrant colors to express the relationship of the corn plant to financial wealth. MY OPPONENT: "In Mass Effect it is that when disaster strikes, it brings out the best in people and sometimes even rivals join forces to do what's right." This game although is really fun and had alot of creativity put in it, does not help the gamers gain any sense of for example the painting "cash crop" does actually have a meaning to it, if looked upon it from a wider perspective. here is what another view of the art work "cash crop" analyzed: the ohio valley is the most productive farmland in the world. This has contributed to the strength and power of Chicago as the Corn Ftures and Commodity of the world. Without compromise, the agriculture strength is depicted in this piece by the background of ten thousand dollar bills. The artist uses rich abundance of vibrant colors to express the relationship of the corn plant to financial wealth. MY OPPONENT: "In Mass Effect it is that when disaster strikes, it brings out the best in people and sometimes even rivals join forces to do what's right." This game although is really fun and had alot of creativity put in it, does not help the gamers gain any sense of art. It is put in a fictional sistuation, in which the gamers main goal is to kill the enemy. therefor all the gamer learns from experiencing this game, is that you need to kill, and thats the only moral the gamer will achieve. If the game was really promoting bringing the best out of people, it would focus more on defining the qualities of men and their actions in these situation. Video games are a good part of life. Alot of times when people are bored or lonely, someone can turn to video games for entertainment. But thats all a video game is, is just an entertainment process. When someone goes to play a videogame they are expecting or hoping to be inspired, just cured of their boredom. therefor you cannot really claim that videogames promote 'art' when the individual doesn't learn anything but killing, or adrenaline rush from a video game. MY OPPONENT:"I never anywhere said that the players were artistic for viewing and playing said games." I know this, but that was was only part of the point. People who view, hear, or re-inact an artwork, aren't always artistic themselves. But when they do participate in learning from an art work, they are usually enlightened with the usage of the specific artwork. Back to what you were saying with the "Cash crop" painting. Even if that painting had no specific meaning, it couldn't be called a piece of art. Every piece of art must have a meaning. you cant just draw a scribble on a piece of paper and call it art. for it to be able to be claimed "art" their must have been creativity and imagination involved in its making AND the viewer must gain a sense of progression and learning from the artwork. Thankyou TSM for the rebuttal and i look forward to your next. -philosophical

  • CON

    That would P/O many happy familys trying to visit some...

    Magic is an art.

    Oh so you want an argment, that's it. I am going to take you so high youre never going back down. If magic is a lube, should lube be art? No. That would P/O many happy familys trying to visit some art museum. If magic ISNT a lube, then that would P/O many artists trying to sell there art when same magician is holding up a sign that says "will show u sum fake trix for moneyz. i m a veterann," "Your face" is so last year. Your mother is a lube.

  • CON

    4 When art used to be good, Artists created pieces that...

    Modern art.

    I wondered when I was going to end up debating you. I just figured it would be about something religious. Starting off the debate with rebuttal? Do you even have any reasoning on your side? Oh well. 1 There once was a day when artists were expected to learn and improve from the previous generation of masters. Nowadays, It is all about what you are feeling when you create art, Not what you are actually creating. There is more than opinions to art. Standards like the golden ratio often is used in the most popular art. That is not an opinion. 2 Trashy is when Michelangelo carves the David out of stone, And the Los Angelos County Museum of Art offers us a 340 ton rock. Just a rock. Or Petra, The prized piece of art consisting of a police woman squatting and urinating, Complete with a puddle of synthetic urine. Thats what I mean by trashy. 3 No its not. Thats what this entire debate is all about. 4 When art used to be good, Artists created pieces that inspired, Uplifted, And deepened us. That has been replaced with what is ugly, Offensive, And pointless. 5 What I meant was that beauty transcends the beholder, It is something that anyone can see and appreciate the time, Effort, And quality that went into making it. Its not a coincidence that the golden ratio is found in nature. Maybe we understand it as the beauty of nature.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-art./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.45
      art: 21.45
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.08 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.15)
  • CON

    Software is created to be used. ... Anything that is...

    programming is art

    Software is created to be used. Anything that is considered Art is not that pedestrian; Art is intended to communicate, inspire, provoke and all that, I don't see the NEA (U.S.)sponsoring software development, and don't expect software to ever be banned in Boston.

  • CON

    My opponent has gone missing so I will restate my...

    Art rules.

    My opponent has gone missing so I will restate my position. I don't think art rules. I think dictators rule, as do presidents and kings. However, art (while it may be awesome) does not rule.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Art-rules./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.37
      art: 21.37
      conclusion: 12.14 (boost 1.50, idf 6.36, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.09 (idf 4.58, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.14 (boost 0.20, idf 2.85, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

    Could you honestly say that the first thoughts upon...

    Nude art is good contribution to the world of art

    Well, first off, how is nude art a representation of the artists creativity? Is not art a reflextion into the mind of the artist? If one made a nude work of art, does that not mean they had flesh on the brain? Thus, as they make it, they are using it to describe a personal sexual desire in some way. Then, as the artist themselves made it with such a purpose doesn't that make the work pornographic in the artists view? Wasn't excitment the origonal purpose of the work itself? I am guessing that if an attractive, naked woman were to be infront of you, you would be arroused. Can you honestly not say that her fleshy appearance is not the least bit invigorating? Could you honestly say that the first thoughts upon viewing the persona of the female is "life" or would it be "desire"? If you can you have an awfully strong will. But as it goes, attraction is a natural phenomenon, thus a person will nearly always be attracted to the opposite sex, especially if they are exposing one's self. In this time where human censorship is common place, the revelation of their bodies is a high arrosal point. So, if it is freely presented it will always take the form of sexual nature, and so it will be in life or But as it goes, attraction is a natural phenomenon, thus a person will nearly always be attracted to the opposite sex, especially if they are exposing one's self. In this time where human censorship is common place, the revelation of their bodies is a high arrosal point. So, if it is freely presented it will always take the form of sexual nature, and so it will be in life or art. If the human body was not censored, and people walked naked amoung the streets, then it would be common placed and would not be so easily arroused. However, in this day and age, it is impossible for one to not find pleasure in the exposal of the opposite's body. If an artist shows a naked body than it will be thought of in a sexual nature if it proves to be attractive. Such is human Nature. Art will not change it. I do agree with you one the origional basis, but at this point and time a naked body will not have an artist effect on the mind, morely a sensual one. The artist intent could be fine, but the ends will not meet sadly. So, for todays society, an exposed body will be pornographic in nature, and any artist who makes such art, is thus also fabricating pornography.

  • CON

    Contention 1: The Justification of Love - Although people...

    Loving is an art

    Contention 1: The Justification of Love - Although people with Savant syndrome cannot be considered the norm, to some degree everyone has something that they are good at with less effort than it would take for someone else to develop that same ability. These cases are extreme, and meant as examples and exceptions to show hat love is not necessarily an art. Loving is an activity, it is something that is done. Contention 2: If they are semantics, I will drop them as semantics are against the rules. Contention 1: It is bound to the burden of the round, the definition of love is the one of mature love: "I need you because I love you". The mother needs her child because she loves her child.The inherent love is not an art. Contention 2: I wasn't arguing that it had to be reciprocal, I was arguing that, although the relationship could not be maintained through a difficulty, it was still love. It was love without meeting your definition of art.