args

Mark Rothko's art is valid and genius.

I would like to thank my opponent for taking on this debate as it is not one easily disputed, requiring at least a modest understanding of Rothko's art and the field in general. I will now begin my argument. My opponent has stated that I must not single out "one or two gems" and I will not, nor was this my intention. There are many things I could argue, Rothko's fame is intrinsically a testament to his genius as a painter; maybe I could go with the monetary value of his paintings, speaking that since they are worth very large sums of money they must be valuable and genius. I will, however, take neither of these routes. My opponent has stated repeatedly that his nephew has created works "just like" Rothko's. While I highly doubt that his nephew had access to oil paints and a fine canvas, that is beside the point; my opponent has argued that because of his ability to create a similar work his nephew's talent is comparable and equivalent to Rothko's. Now many people can produce fakes, a Swiss collector Ernst Beyeler called a fake Rothko from Queens a "sublime unknown masterwork" in 2005 and hung it in his namesake museum. The reproducibility has little to nothing to do with the art's value as a whole. To say that it does is to say that just because Gustave Eiffel designed a world renowned tower his work is not genius because his nephew at a later age could do the same thing after seeing the tower. My opponent has also stated that "the works are not particularly well-suited to their purpose, presuming the purposes of art are to be adored, to make people think, to create emotions within people, etc." This could not be farther from the truth, as his works have been honored in many forms, including a six Tony award winning play (including best play) titled "Red." I have seen people brought to tears by his works and while my personal testimony holds little weight, the fact that hundreds of thousands of people visit and admire his works each year definitely does. To close I would like to state that the simplicity of his art and its ability to bring about such strong reactions in people is simple proof of his genius. To say that the art is not genius is to state a personal opinion. While your opinion is ignorant and unpopular it is your right to hold it. I would advise caution expressing it in the future, as a spot on your refrigerator may be worth eighty million dollars to someone else. http://www.nytimes.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.markrothko.org...

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

Art, much like Christianity is something that a person believes in versus something that is a proven fact. Its relative to an individual and solely based on ones faith and preference. I do not believe in art.

Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

I thank my competitor for the rebuttal Art is a wonderful thing and that's a main reason why it should be required I don't believe it is a waste of time, because even though if your career involves art and you do need that art course on college the high school class will give you a head start and may cause you to use less time & possibly less money. I see the validity in your third statement, but I feel like the application of everyday encounters it would be beneficial in the sense of understanding what their conveying. But leaving this as an optional class most students would choose to deny the class and it gives the opportunity for the students to become interested, It is not Required that you must be interested in that area. Maybe to discover a hidden talent that a student might pass up because they chose not to take the class. It's true that it takes time after school to give full effort, but high school is the biggest part of your adolescent life, & it is out of my control of how much homework the American school system gives, and generally speaking, art classes don't give much homework other than practice. I assume next is closing statement?

Taekwondo is Not a Martial Art

I thank Con for accepting this debate. I would like to apologize from the get go; I should have either made this debate longer or put my opening arguments in R1. Oh well, its all a learning experience, right? The word martial is defined as “relating to, or suited for war” [1]. Therefore, in order to be considered a martial art, Taekwondo has to employ techniques that are useful in combat and/or self-defense. Now I don’t deny that Taekwondo pays lip service to such techniques, but as I will presently show, the foundations of modern Taekwondo are not martial techniques. The two things that modern Taekwondo is known for are Olympic Style Sparring, and high, acrobatic kicking. Sparring is the cornerstone of martial arts training [2]. However, modern Taekwondo sparring divorces itself from most useful martial techniques. The only techniques allowed are punches to the chest, and kicks to the chest guard and face. No open hand techniques, no punches to the face, no grabs, no takedowns, no throws [3]. These prohibited techniques are exactly the kind of thing that one would need in order to become a proficient fighter, and Taekwondo not only doesn’t promote them, it outlaws them. The other point I will address is the other aspect of Taekwondo that the sport is known for: high kicking. [4]. It is necessary to warm up the large muscles used in such kicks, or one risks injury [5], which would certainly damage your chances in a fight. On the street, there is no time for such warm ups [6], so performing them would be suicide. High kicking may be pretty, but it isn’t martial technique. I have shown that the core aspects of modern Taekwondo, Olympic Sparring and acrobatic kicking, are not martial techniques. Therefore, Taekwondo is not a martial Therefore, in order to be considered a martial art, Taekwondo has to employ techniques that are useful in combat and/or self-defense. Now I don’t deny that Taekwondo pays lip service to such techniques, but as I will presently show, the foundations of modern Taekwondo are not martial techniques. The two things that modern Taekwondo is known for are Olympic Style Sparring, and high, acrobatic kicking. Sparring is the cornerstone of martial arts training [2]. However, modern Taekwondo sparring divorces itself from most useful martial techniques. The only techniques allowed are punches to the chest, and kicks to the chest guard and face. No open hand techniques, no punches to the face, no grabs, no takedowns, no throws [3]. These prohibited techniques are exactly the kind of thing that one would need in order to become a proficient fighter, and Taekwondo not only doesn’t promote them, it outlaws them. The other point I will address is the other aspect of Taekwondo that the sport is known for: high kicking. [4]. It is necessary to warm up the large muscles used in such kicks, or one risks injury [5], which would certainly damage your chances in a fight. On the street, there is no time for such warm ups [6], so performing them would be suicide. High kicking may be pretty, but it isn’t martial technique. I have shown that the core aspects of modern Taekwondo, Olympic Sparring and acrobatic kicking, are not martial techniques. Therefore, Taekwondo is not a martial art. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.martialartssparring.org... [3] http://www.taekwondo-information.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.thekickerscorner.com... [6] http://news.menshealth.com...

Art MasterPiece Challenge!

I choose.... *drum roll please* From my deviantart account, 9king, link here: http://9king.deviantart.com... GRANDER ART GALLERY. As explained from the deviantart page, I worked on one drawing per day until I finished this, so it wasn't very hard. But I estimate the difficulty would be near-impossible if I tried everything in one go. Each drawing has its own name and different style, desgined to look like someone would look at this and say "there's no way the same guy drew all of these". DRAWINGS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AND UP TO DOWN: "FATHER TIME": The surrealist piece meant to make you say "Well, I've got an idea of what I'm getting into." "MALICIOUS BUSINESS MAN": The cool and funky caricature that stands out of the otherwise realistic gallery. "WALL FLOWERS": The realistic roses. These were much easier than I had expected. "BIRD GODDESS": The epic watercolor meant to divert your attention from the "Grand Masterpiece" and meant to be calm and smoothing, just like the coloring employed onto the paper. "THE LIVIN' ROOM": A simple piece of furniture and a lamp beside it gives you time to rest before you meet the final three (rather chaotic) drawings "POLICE ROBOT": This is where we first see the action happening--a cool wooden "robot" telling you to stop, before your eyes go blind from seeing the "Grand Masterpiece". :P "BREAKING 5TH WALL": The "Grand Masterpiece" that is probably the first to draw your attention. It almost looks like the fist is really breaking out the glass holding it, and the strong 3-D really makes it seem it's the only one to pop out of the wall, the only one to surpass them all, both physically and drawing wise. "SCHOLARSHIP TO VASE ACADEMY": Another surrealist piece that is arguably more realistic than "FATHER TIME". The cool shading reminds you of all the different pieces and the realism involved, and the variety of colors brings a nice "conclusion" to the art gallery.

Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art

Sometimes artists go too far in a bid to get their message across. Simply grabbing the headlines with shock tactics does not constitute Simply grabbing the headlines with shock tactics does not constitute art of the sort that should be receiving either public support or attention. It is important to recognise that public displays and funding of art are limited commodities, so every time one piece is chosen for an exhibition, or an artist is given money, this comes at the cost of other possible pieces of art. It is surely better to support those artists who have chosen to express their ideas and messages in a way that does not rely on simple attention-grabbing horror: it is surely more artistically meritorious to create a work that conveys its message in a way that rewards close attention and careful study, with layers of meaning and technique.