PRO

  • PRO

    It is illegal in most cases, and graffiti at the core...

    Graffiti Art

    Graffiti art has been a part of urban culture dating back to the late 1960s. It is an art form that has spread through the world and gained a lot of popularity; it can be seen on clothing, backpacks, modern art galleries, and yes walls and other public places. It is illegal in most cases, and graffiti at the core typically has political messages or just expresses the artist feelings and creativity by using the alphabet, shapes, and characters in some cases. The whole purpose behind graffiti is to get your name "up" and be noticed by many, to gain fame by going against what society tells you to do, and to in a way give a metaphorical middle finger to the higher government powers at being.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Graffiti-Art/1/
  • PRO

    I believe Con is fixated on what is or is not art based...

    Everything can be Construed as Art

    I believe Con is fixated on what is or is not art based on whether or not it is legal. Again, I do not believe why this is so, and he fails to explain it other than state that vandalism is not art. But then, what is art, according to Con? Con gives almost nothing about what art actually is, and mentions more so about what art is not, mainly that it is not graffiti in public places. Why? Because it is illegal? Would that mean that if the government bans art, then art would cease to exist? Also photography is a valued form of art, it takes skill to capture a certain feeling, a certain angle, a certain expression. A photography can inspire as much feeling as a painting. I do not understand this discrimination, and Con does not explain it either. It almost feels as if Con mistakes art for something objectively good and tasteful, but that simply is not the case. Art can be bad. It has no limits towards either extreme. To conclude, art is not object oriented. Objects are not art by their nature. Their value as art are projected upon them by the agents with the ability to give creative values to them. And thus, everything can be construed as art. Thanks to mostlogical for this debate. And I look forward to his conclusion.

  • PRO

    Rebuttals Con agrees that the Mona Lisa would not be art...

    Everything can be Construed as Art

    Rebuttals Con agrees that the Mona Lisa would not be art without those with the capacity for art. Let us observe what this entails. Art does not exist through physical craft alone, it lives within us, with our ability to project creative values upon objects. This is the artist's relation to art. Art is not exclusive to physical artifacts. The construct of the mind is the origin of art. Con posts various photos including vandalism to site that they are not art. But his arguments are mere biases. It is just as conceivable that a man may look at the Mona Lisa and see nothing but a mundane woman without any artistic appreciation or feeling. My argument is not that all art is good, though what is artistically good is largely subjective to begin with. Con concedes that "An artist can paint absolutely anything on a piece of paper that we can see or imagine and it will be considered art even if it is a painting of vandalism" and then makes the odd argument that it is no longer art the moment it is interpreted as vandalism. I do not see why art must be exclusive from vandalism and pro has not demonstrated why this is the case. Then Con goes on to argue that "art isn't selfish". I also do not understand with what logical basis he makes this claim, and how it is supported. In regards to his picture of a penis, it is indeed, art, albeit, not a good one. In regards to Con's final argument, the moon itself is not art by ontology, art itself is a subjective concept of living beings. Thus, art lives within people's minds, their creative projection of values, their imagination. The resolution is not that the moon is art, it is that the moon can be construed to be art.

  • PRO

    Ok firstly I would like to say I am sorry that I was...

    Are Videogames Art

    Ok firstly I would like to say I am sorry that I was unable to post my round 3 debate I had some issues at home which prevented me. Onto the debate. I would first like to point out that I was also wrong on the "Cash Crop" and that my opponent has some very valid points about it, but when I first glanced at it I didn't even know where it was taking place or it helped with the power of Chicago. Per say, I was a tourist in an art museum and "Cash Crop" was on display I wouldn't really know a lot about it unless I had researched it or there was a brief history next to the display. My Opponent: "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." This may be so, but if anyone has actually ever played through the whole game, they would know that it does have parts of it that are inspirational, for instance they actual game cutscenes that you CANNOT elude, like at the end when the Reapers attack, all the species on the station ban together in one final stand. (Link at bottom of debate) If that's not even the slightest bit inspirational I don't know what is. My Opponent: "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." I know what my opponent is saying that all art has SOME form of meaning in it, no matter how extravagant like in Starry Night or to something much more subtle as in Mass Effect. The viewer (or in this case gamer) usually does gain some sense of learning I will just run through 2 examples. 1) In Mass Effect, the gamer learns of leadership, choices, and team work. I know that playing the game doesn't make it art, but the fact the developers put that in there because all 3 of those points are a big part of the game and it gives the gamer a sense of leadership. 2) In the game, Legend of Zelda, a gamer learns of heroism, the art of love, and adventure. This is my final round, I would like to thank philosphical for accepting this debate and for making it such a challenge, I hope, sir, that we dance the battle of debates soon in the future. Thank you for reading, dear viewers, and whomever you vote for, please actually consider this, I wont be telling you to vote Pro because it just may not be your view, just vote on what you really like and dislike, but if you do vote Pro donate a couple points to Con, and I also hope that you will to me if you vote Con. Again thank you to philosophical for a great debate. -TSM Mass Effect Cutscene: http://www.youtube.com...

  • PRO

    Because of such, if someone were to draw graffiti on a...

    Graffiti can be art.

    You may not change the resolution. Because of such, the debate stands at "Graffiti can be art". Since you accepted the debate, you accepted going against the resolution, therefore you have no right to alter it to fit your standards. REBUTTALS "By definition, graffiti is unauthorized and therefore is a crime. If the drawing is authorized then it is called a mural, which is defined as "a large picture painted or affixed directly on a wall or ceiling."(3) To clarify my statement, I am saying that graffiti is by definition a crime. If the drawing is authorized it is classified as a mural, otherwise it is defacing someone else's property and cannot be considered art." The obvious answer as always. And as always, completly false. Graffiti is also a form of art, drawing letters into a specific shape in order to make it more appealing. Because of such, if someone were to draw graffiti on a piece of paper, not only is it art, but legal. Contention 1: Art is vague Though art has a definition, it is not good enough to support what art truly is. Art is so vague, and can mean many things. Because of such, the expression "anything can be art" is correct. Art isn't just drawing, painting, singing etc.. but it can also be robbing, assasinating, killing and vandalizing. Since art is so vague, everything can be art, and graffiti is not an exception. And by looking at the definitions, it is still art. Let us use the definitions you used for example. Art "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." Graffiti "unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface" Even though your graffiti definition is completly false, it still matches the definition of art. Graffiti is quality, it is production, it is expression against the law, it is realm, has aesthetic principles, in many cases beautifull since it is subjective, can apeal people and has more than just a ordinary significance. Even though it is illegal, it still matches the definition of art. Where does it say "things that are illegal can't be art" in the dictionnary? Graffiti. [1] Contention 2: Graffiti is different from vandalism. Graffiti, if we were to use a proper definition, unlike my opponent would be: " A form of writing or drawing something specifically on a surface" Whereas vandalism would be: "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" [2] Though graffit can be used as vandalism, it isn't always. It is used to make posters, to draw for art class, to have fun with. Because of such, it can be art. Therefore I have already upheld my side of the resolution "graffiti can be art". CONCLUSION In conclusion, since anything can be art, graffiti can be art. Graffiti isn't always wrong, since it can be done legally. I have proved that graffiti can be art, whereas my opponent shared his personal opinion that if it's wrong it can't be art. Killing is wrong, robbing is wrong, but it is still an art. I have countered my opponent's arguments, and created 2 new firm ones, proving my side of the debate. The debate topic will stay at "Graffiti can be art" and will not be changed at all. Sources: 1.http://meganmidnight.wordpress.com... 2.http://www.merriam-webster.com...

  • PRO

    This is an art challenge between my opponent and I. We...

    Art Challenge

    This is an art challenge between my opponent and I. We will both have to create two art pieces Rules: 1. 1st round is acceptance 2. 1 piece in R2 and then R3. 3. Any materials/ media can be used. 4. The pieces have to be your own creation. 5. The pieces can be of any style and size. Good luck!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Art-Challenge/5/
  • PRO

    you can find decent painted art with a simple Google...

    Picture Art is no longer a job.

    Picture Art used to be seen as a huge job that you could be rich if you were good enough, But now ¨art¨ as a job is dead, Allow me to make my points There's no reason to buy Picture art. People used to buy art because of 1 or 2 reasons: It was painted well, And it had some deep meaning behind it, Well, In present time we no longer have those reasons to buy art. you can find decent painted art with a simple Google search nowadays, And if you want to keep one who could just save the image in your folders, Sure, You can pay artists to commission, But most of the commissions requested turn out to be fetish requests, It becomes such a problem it makes up over half of Deviantart, Search up anything on there and you'll find at least one fetish picture, And that sort of scares people away from the site. nowadays art with deep meaning is dead, People almost ever make art with meaning, And when they do its usually poorly made, The most meaningful art that has been made nowadays is a furry crying about how they are the punching bag of the Internet (no shade at any furries though, Its just complaining about how your fan base is hated isn't really anything new) No one is interested in Picture art anymore when people look for art, They usually go for styles in cartoons, Anime, And video games, Sometimes even online animation, But most of the Internet are forgetting about art, Deviantart and tumblr are dying, And notebook doesn't have as many users as them because they don't allow fetishes and porn. For Picture Art, Originality is dead go on any picture art website, And its going to be covered with fan art, OCs for their fan art, Fan comics, Fan fiction, Anthro versions of animal characters, The most original things that have Picture Art has is its furry art. if you draw art, I would reccomend you get a backup or secondary job, Because Picture Artists who solely have that job will not make it far I'm afraid.

  • PRO

    I believe that the creation of video games should be...

    Video Games are an art form.

    I believe that the creation of video games should be considered a form of art. Cinema is an art form, literature is an art form, and photography is an art form. A good video game usually has all of components of the art forms above, like beautiful visuals, enticing story lines, and originality. The only difference between video games and other art forms is that the admiring audience is actually interacting with the masterpiece. So, people argue that the "masterpiece" is different to all people trying to admire it. I argue back that there are paintings that show different concepts to different people. So why are video games not considered art?

  • PRO

    Falling in love- This point is conceded Maintaining love...

    Loving is an art

    I thank my opponent for her responses! As a brief road-map, I will first be refuting the attacks made on my contentions, and I will proceed to attack my opponent's arguments =Arguments= Pro- Contention 1: Justification of love- The fact that there are so many stages proves that it takes skill an practice. immature love will stay immature love forever if it is allowed to, only with skill (Which comes over time) and Practice can immature love become mature love Motherly Love- When I say motherly love is a given is assumed in the context that the love is there in the first place. Falling in love- This point is conceded Maintaining love through a difficulty- - For those who do not view their differences as a problem, there is no problem to reconcile - Of course they need each other because they love each other, which is why reconciliation of problem is so important. Ultimately my opponent never really makes a valid argument here at all. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- - My opponent is attacking my quote from Erich Fromm out of context; and at that they don't even attack the full quote. the symbiotic attachment isn't to another person, but to ego. Thus it isn't love. - Honestly my the warrant behind my opponent's argument that it isn't a hefty deed proves that loving is an Falling in love- This point is conceded Maintaining love through a difficulty- - For those who do not view their differences as a problem, there is no problem to reconcile - Of course they need each other because they love each other, which is why reconciliation of problem is so important. Ultimately my opponent never really makes a valid argument here at all. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- - My opponent is attacking my quote from Erich Fromm out of context; and at that they don't even attack the full quote. the symbiotic attachment isn't to another person, but to ego. Thus it isn't love. - Honestly my the warrant behind my opponent's argument that it isn't a hefty deed proves that loving is an art; as she says "If one practices and develops enough skill to love people, then it could be possible for them to love any person they encounter." Con- Contention 1: - My opponent's warrant is comprised of broken logic. "they don't need them, but love them anyway so it's not an art"? Simply by making such a statement, you do not prove that love is not an art; all you prove is that motherly love is a more beautiful art. - My opponent claims that if love is simply given it is not an art, this is untrue as it is a correlation causation fallacy. The mother does not begin the process of loving when the child is born, but all throughout her life she is conditioned to love. She is groomed and give the necessary knowledge. Contention 2: - First in the case of the divorce, we must ask the question of whether there was any love in the first place. Many couples get married not out of love; but because they have a child on the way, because they feel they need to, for financial security, because one of them pressured the other into it. - Next we must realize that if a spouse simply "falls out of love" for no reason, it is was more likely than not immature love in the first place; thus not inclusive to this round.

  • PRO

    Also (not saying you are but...) if you were to say art...

    It is impossible to define art

    First off, i would like to thank you dullurd for joining my debate. Now in your previous argument you said that it would be less interesting if i were to say art can not be perfictly defined, i totally agree with this, infact most things cannot be perfectly defined. but i also believe that art cannot be defined well. there are so many different kinds of art that finding a few words to describe how one feels about it would be impossible to give it and so called "definition" Now i am glad you agree that with me that art does not nessesairly have to be beautiful, that makes our disscussion a bit easier. now in your previous argument you said you believe art is an expression, now to an extent art can be an expression. but this "definition" does not cover all of the different kinds of art. the definition of expression is.... "The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words, art, music, or movement;a manifestation;" Now with this definition, it would cover such arts as, literature, music, and dance/martial arts/ and so on. now the term manifestation, would reffer to something being revealed as art. i believe that the art dosent nessessairly have to be revealed to become what it is. now i do believe expression would cover some braud parts of art, but like in my previous argument, an expression would have to be a consence act to peform. if you dont know it is happening, than it wouldnt be a liberal expression. Now for me to be one to create art, (like you said in your argument) of course it may seem like art in my eyes, and than someone may say different. this is why one person may not be able to give a definition of what an art is because their views may seem different from the person next to thems. Also (not saying you are but...) if you were to say art can only be created by an artist, or someone whom's goal was to create an art it would be somewhat like discrimination to say a non artist cannot create art, because it may very well be art in their eyes. so in a nutshell, the same definition of art cannot be used for all the different kinds of art, or different people in the world. art would have to be something that each individual has to feel for. but if you were to take the different kinds of art like; photography, painting, cooking, martial art, dance, and so on, and give them each smaller definitions for each of their similarties than you can get a more narrow idea on what art might be, but still you wouldnt be able to define it well enough for all of the arts and for every persons belief. Sorry if this seemed a bit confusion, (im sorry my darn cat annoyed me through the whole thing) but please try and understand my point. I look forward to the conclusion of this debate sincerily - DeATHNOTE

CON

  • CON

    Thanks for posting your views, I do agree with much you...

    Everything can be Construed as Art

    Thanks for posting your views, I do agree with much you have said, e.g. art must mean something or give rise to feelings to be considered art, and I think it has to be interpreted by a living thing with a creative mind - the Mona Lisa would like you say just be a piece of paper with paint on if there were no life with the capacity for art. If you look at the below picture, if this were a painting or drawing it would be considered art. However, the same image isn't art when it is a photograph. An artist can paint absolutely anything on a piece of paper that we can see or imagine and it will be considered art even if it is a painting of vandalism. But once s/she starts to paint on something that doesn't belong or appear to belong to him or her e.g. a house or car, it will not be construed as art, instead it will be interpreted as vandalism. People who vandalise property express themselves, but it doesn't matter how clever, beautiful or romantic their grafitti is, it is always a selfish act. Art isn't selfish. Photographs like the one below can't be construed as art. To accept the above image as being art or the picture below as art... is to accept the following image below as art because frankly there is no difference Only a person's (or an animal's) expressions can be thought of as art, so you can't simply look up at the moon and correctly claim that it is art. Art requires an artist. Sculptures are art because an artist made them; they give an insight to a person's mind. If a river sculpts the land it won't be art, it can inspire someone to paint though. That concludes my view on art, I look forward to rebutting your arguments

  • CON

    However, just because it's impossible to get everyone to...

    It is impossible to define art

    No definition of art can be really objective; there will never be a consensus. However, just because it's impossible to get everyone to agree on its definition doesn't mean that every definition of art is equally valid. I wish the debate topic were worded more specifically. If the question you're posing is whether art can be perfectly defined so that no one will disagree, it's basically impossible for me to argue my side, and this could never be an interesting discussion. However, I guess I'm hoping that you wanted to debate a more interesting question, which is whether art can be defined well, just not necessarily perfectly. My personal definition of art, one that many people agree with to some extent, is that art is expression. Beauty can enhance art, and in many genres of art, beauty is an integral ingredient, but I agree with you that beauty is certainly not a prerequisite characteristic for something to be considered art. One way to see how I arrive at my definition of art is to compare a beautiful piece of art with something else that is indisputably a piece of art, but not beautiful, and try to figure out what they have in common. It's easy to think of beautiful art, so I'll let you imagine your favorite example, and for the nonbeautiful piece of art, I'll pick Picasso's "Guernica": http://www.artquotes.net... Guernica is certainly not aesthetically beautiful. Its figures are distorted, it's monochromatic, and especially if you know the story behind it (it represents the 1937 bombing of a Spanish town by the Nazis), it does not evoke pleasant thoughts. Yet hardly anyone would argue that Guernica is not art. Why is it art, though? Because it evokes thoughts, because it is Picasso's chosen vehicle for expression, and it works, it brings the viewer to Picasso's mindset. The main criticism of my definition of art is probably that it's too broad. I can understand this reaction. You might say to me, "Hey dullurd, I was doodling the other day in my notebook, I drew an anthropomorphic hotdog with a moustache, are you really telling me that's art?" I would have to say yes, it is art. I think this kind of criticism is based on a implicit definition of art that is a lot worse that the one I'm putting forward. Note that my definition of art says nothing about its quality. Just because something is expressive doesn't make it good/high art. I would then ask you on what grounds are you so certain that your goofy hotdog isn't art? I mean, I'd probably call it very bad/low art, but if you want to say it isn't art at all, you've got some explaining to do. I'm guessing that you would at least instinctively want to say something about the fact that it isn't beautiful, or that it didn't seem to take much time and effort to create. It's understandable that these arguments would come to mind. People inherently appreciate beauty and effort. However, we've both already agreed that beauty is not a necessary ingredient for art. And as far as effort goes, think about photography. Certainly photographs are art, but they take minimal effort, the push of a button, to actually create. While time and effort make it much more likely that a piece of art will be good/high art, they aren't prerequisites either. I could say more, but I think this is good for now. Looking forward to your response.

  • CON

    Architecture- the profession of designing buildings, open...

    Bioshock is a work of art

    Aspects of video games are art. Video games themselves are not art. Video games are architecture, but not art. I would like to define a term. Architecture- the profession of designing buildings, open areas, communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect. http://dictionary.reference.com... Architecture is not art. Hundreds of colleges have schools of Art and Architecture. Why aren't these just called art schools if architecture is art? Because architecture is not art. Here are just a sample of the schools that refer themselves as schools of art and architecture. http://www.coaa.uncc.edu... http://www.caad.msstate.edu... http://www.arts.ucla.edu... http://www.uidaho.edu... Video games are artificial constructions and environments. Therefore, video games are architecture and not art. Thank you. SeelTheMan

  • CON

    that is like art you cant describe art in its true depth...

    Is art an essential in learning

    No, I would submit that it is not a tenable position to say that Art is essential to learning. The implication there is that you cannot learn without Art, which is of course not true. Learning is, in many cases, possible in the absence of Art. In response to your initial arguments, one at a time: Argument 1: "yes because when your learning is it easier to learn by someone just telling you something or to actually do it. that is like art you cant describe art in its true depth unless you show someone or do it so when your learning art can help to make every subject easier." Response 1: We can agree that it's easier to learn something by doing it rather than just being told about it ("I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand" - Confucius), but that's both irrelevant to this argument and not a contentious point. I agree that the above statement applies to Art, but you have made an illogical progression in your reasoning of the last part of this statement: You've said A: "Learning is easier if you can actually do the thing", B: "I agree that the above statement applies to Art, but you have made an illogical progression in your reasoning of the last part of this statement: You've said A: "Learning is easier if you can actually do the thing", B: "Art is easier to learn if you see it rather than hear it described", therefore C: "You need Art to help make learning every subject an easier task". Upon inspection, C of course does not follow A and B. Argument 2: "also, art is everywhere you go so why not learn more about it. many jobs involve all kinds of art designers, architects, home builders so if you are not learning art then how are you supposed to get better at designing and building." Response 2: I can't see a way to spin this as relevant to the discussion, either. Art IS everywhere, but that's not what we're debating. Sure, many jobs require an understanding of Art. But again, while an art designer may well benefit in their career from an understanding of Art, what about someone who's job does not involve Art? Does a garbage disposal worker need Art to learn how to do his or her job? If the answer to this is no, we can only possibly conclude that Art is not essential to learning, as you have proposed. Finally, Argument 3: "one easy way make art an essential well learning." Response 3: I could be mistaken about what you mean by this because it's pretty tough to make sense out of, but I can only interpret it as saying that one easy way to get better at designing and building is to make Art a requirement in the education of people who design and build- which, often, it is. If they need it, it is already a requirement. If they don't need it, see response #2 for how this is still an invalid argument.

  • CON

    The resolution is like "marmite is tasty" - it is not...

    Video Games are a form of art.

    In Pro's final round, he provides two understandings of what 'art' is and why we should believe that video games should be classified as them. The problem is, they are mutually exclusive and so Pro's position is inconsistent. Let's look at these two definitions; 1) Art is completely subjective. Whether or not something is art depends not on some criterion that must be met, but is relative to the observer. In Pro's own words "An artist determines what is art for he alone can understand why it is considered art to him" - the key word to recognise here is 'determines'. The artist does not recognise that something is art because it possesses qualities that match up to a criterion; whether it is art is relative to him. So, what's the problem? The problem is that given this definition of art it is impossible, in principle, for Pro to prove that the resolution is true. If I believe video games are not art and he believes video games are art there is no way way of determining which of us is right - the resolution is not stating any true fact about video games. The resolution is like "marmite is tasty" - it is not true or false, but is relative to the taster (observer). Pro illustrates the point perfectly "What one person sees a work of art, another sees as nothing artistic at all" 2) Art involves "Shapes, colors, sounds, movements, etc." - this is completely new understanding of art introduced in the last round and should be rejected on that basis. In addition, it provides a criterion for something to meet to be art and thus contradicts definition 1). Pro gives the example of Final Fantasy XIII and says why he considers it to be a work of art - he sees it as beautiful amongst other positive characteristics. However, we then have to accept that art not only includes those elements included in the definition but that they are used in skilled ways that excite the observer's senses, intellect or emotions. Pro's definition is incomplete

  • CON

    My opponent is AWOL so I have no choice but to restate my...

    Art rules.

    Same thing as before. My opponent is AWOL so I have no choice but to restate my position. Again. I don't think My opponent is AWOL so I have no choice but to restate my position. Again. I don't think art rules. There are many things that dominate society and culture and I believe throughout history, art has always been second tier. Politics, economics, religion, for example.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Art-rules./1/
  • CON

    Artists use skill and express creativity or feelings by...

    Everything can be Construed as Art

    Artists use skill and express creativity or feelings by drawing, or painting. If they selfishly keep their thoughts and feelings to themself, or they write them down or only tell people about them then no-one else can visualise them. Sure there are things which inspire us to paint or draw but we must project our creative thoughts upon objects before we can then call it art. I wouldn't say I lack an artistic appreciation due to viewing vandalism as vandalism instead of art. If you slowly scroll down while looking at the picture below, you may be surprised to find it isn't actually grafitti. I pesonally would not want the mural above, but I know it is art because this is not painted in a public place. If this same painting was found on a bus stop for example it would no longer be interpreted as art. There are people who will disagree with me of course, the guy who painted the below message certainly does! Some people ask 'When does grafitti become art?' but these people fail to realise that art and grafitti are two completely different things. Grafitti is always vandalism, and is carried out without permission on somone else's property while art is often legal and always carried out on someone's own property. A lot of people will call or think the mural I showed is grafitti, because that is what grafitti typically looks like. What makes something art is not it's appearance though, the photograph of the house (or the house itself) I showed in round 2 isn't art, but had the exact image been painted it would be art. This is because art is an expression of human or animal creativity. To create art an artist must first be inspired, s/he might be inspired by nature, by urban landscapes, or by people. The picture of the penis (or woman with a long neck) in round 2 did require some creativity, but the fact this picture is on a bin tells me it isn't art. Therefore not everything can be construed as art.

  • CON

    What is art? Art is a skill such as painting or drawing...

    Everything can be Construed as Art

    What is art? Art is a skill such as painting or drawing which causes someone to feel something. The Grand Canyon or any object such as a house can bring about feelings, however snapping those things with a camera is not the same as making a work of art. Only an artist (novice or expert) can create art because art is a skill. If his or her painting looks like a photograph or is completely imaginary, it is art. Whether a picture is art or grafitti depends on whether the person who made it is selfish. If a person paints a picture on property not belonging to them the person has created grafitti, not art. If the same painting is painted on property belonging to them it is art. Art is "often" legal. The law doesn't determine what is or isn't art. Objective morality and human feelings do. Art can be beautiful or ugly, but despite this not everything can be construed as art. My opponent adds: "Also photography is a valued form of art, it takes skill to capture a certain feeling, a certain angle, a certain expression. A photography can inspire as much feeling as a painting." I'm sure there are many photographers who consider themselves artists, the black and white 'phantom' photograph for instance sold for 6.5 million dollars and certainly does inspire as much feeling as a painting. Inspiration can come from natural and urban landscapes as well as people. What inspires someone to paint something or take a photograph can come from the same source. However it should be noted that the brain takes photographs and stores them as memories all the time, so taking a quick photograph is no different to looking at a house, the moon, or any object. Thanks for having this debate, and wish you the best with future debates

  • CON

    Well, it comes down to a few things. ... Instead, it...

    Video Games are an art form.

    This is an intresting debate, and I like your point of view, so here we go. A good movie, book, or picture are all art forms. Created by a person of group, these things can represent ideals, beliefs, ways of thinking, and choice. Art is human. From cave paintings to the Mona Lisa, art has impacted humanity in all sorts of ways. Video games can fulfill these same things, so why is it that video games are not considered an art form? Well, it comes down to a few things. A: Video Games have Goals Whether you are playing the campaign on Halo: Reach or fighting other players on Modern Warfare, video games have goals. Achieve this goal, run to this checkpoint, capture this flag, defeat your opponent. This, in essence, is how a video game is played: the accomplishment of these goals. Without these goals, a video game is nothing, an area to walk around. Do other art forms have a goal? See who can watch the movie the fastest, pay the most attention to the ballet, count how many people are in this picture? No, that is not what art is. Art is meant to be interpreted to the viewer or listener, and let that person decide how to feel based off that art form. One must achieve the goals of a video game, and thus cannot interpret the game for themselves. B: Deliberation Consider the art forms today. Literature, music, dancing, paintings, etc. These things have many things in common, but one aspect is usually overlooked: they have to be created deliberatly. Music has been around since man started eating beans, paintings since the blood of an animal accidently splashed on a wall, dance since a swarm of bees started to sting a man trying to steal honey, and and lierature as man took the sounds he heard and tried to record them so others could 'hear' it. Video games cannot happen randomly as these other art forms can. Instead, it takes years of work from a group of people to accomplish their goal of creating something entertaining. C: Creators of Art Excluding video games, all of the art forms listed in our debate have one thing in common: they were created by either a single person or a single group and one is left to interpret the art. Video games are not so. One can change the surroundings of a video game, interact with others, and affect a storyline. All other forms of art are created and then left alone for its enjoyers to interpret for themselves. By allowing the gamers to affect how the video game is played, it basically defeats the purpose of the creators creating an art form. As you can see, video games may be considered an art with music, storylines, and graphics. To anyone who doesn't think about it, it could be considered an art form. Unfortunatly for myself, as a lover of video games, and the video-gaming community, it isn't an art form. The fact that one can interact with it does not make it an art, in fact it could keep it from being an art. By making the gamers conform to a set way of interpreting the game, i.e. achieveing goals and getting passed levels, it takes away the ability of the gamer to interpret the game for themselves. And, if it weren't for the creators deliberating creating the game, there would be no game, for nature does not allow video games to be created randomly. So thus, because of all the reason stated, video games are not an art form and I urge the voters to vote Con.

  • CON

    1] 1. ... [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]...

    Brewing is an art form

    Congratulations on your 100th debate. I'm willing to make it worthwhile! Brewing is not an art. "art noun (Concise Encyclopedia) A visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation. The various visual arts exist within a continuum that ranges from purely aesthetic purposes at one end to purely utilitarian purposes at the other. This should by no means be taken as a rigid scheme, however, particularly in cultures in which everyday objects are painstakingly constructed and imbued with meaning. Particularly in the 20th century, debates arose over the definition of art. Figures such as Dada artist Marcel Duchamp implied that it is enough for an artist to deem something “art” and put it in a publicly accepted venue. Such intellectual experimentation continued throughout the 20th century in movements such as conceptual art and Minimalism. By the turn of the 21st century, a variety of new media (e.g., video art) further challenged traditional definitions of art." [1] 1. Art is hard to define, but one essential part of it can be found in the attempt at a definition above: the intent to create art. Art cannot be created accidentally, and not as a by-product. Beer is produced in order to intoxicate people and make money. Not as an expression of art or emotion. Skill is required, yes. Care is required, for else the product will not sell. Some brewers love their job and activity. But none of that creates art. 2. Art is not detrimental to society Brewing creates alcohol. Alcohol is a neurotoxin that "increases the fluidity of the neuronal membrane by changing the ratio of unsaturated to saturated fats in favour of the latter; in addition, the concentration of cholesterol is increased. These changes in lipid composition appear to be associated with the development of behavioural tolerance to the drug. The resultant change in membrane structure affects transport processes across the cell surface involving calcium and other electrolytes and the active transport of neurotransmitters such as the biogenic amines and GABA; there is evidence that neurotransmitter receptor function is also impaired as a consequence of the alteration in the membrane micro-environment brought about by chronic ethanol exposure. Such effects suggest that alterations in cellular function, and ultimately behaviour, are primarily the result of the changes in nerve membrane structure and function." [2] People under the influence of beer are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, violence and other socially detrimental activities. I say that any activity producing beer can not be called an art form because of the ill effects of its mass product poison threatening the well-being of our society. Art furthers society: "Try to imagine society without the humanising influence of the arts, and you will have to strip out most of what is pleasurable in life, as well as much that is educationally critical and socially essential." [3] 3. Brewing is not the expression of an individual's qualities Through art, the artist expresses themselves. The process of brewing allows for little freedom of expression, as taking a lot of creative freedom will simply result in the beer to not marketable. If brewing were a form of art, there would be "young wilds" who would brew beer that would be impossible to drink, just to spite all those drunkards who dare swallow the precious beverage by the gallon without ever acknowledging its qualities, but rather for its alcohol content and cheap price. That does not happen. All beer is modelled to appeal to as many buyers as possible, leaving the brewer mainly out of the picture once the recipe is set. So the brewer has no qualities of an artist, hence brewing is not a form of art. If it were, everything that takes care would be an art, and this debate would be pointless. I'm looking forward to your reply. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.artscouncil.org.uk...