args

Modern art.

I see the point you are making over and over again: beauty is subjective. Ok, But I have put out multiple claims which you reject to acknowledge. Such as the the entire reason that art is created: to express beauty. Not to make a crude statement. Or that the inspiring, Uplifting, And motivational have been replaced by the pointless, Arbitrary, And purely offensive. I went to the Oakland museum of art recently and i saw this clay object (at best it looked like a warped clay pot) I was trying to understand how it even got in there since I created something similar when I was four with a hunk of craft clay. Then I saw a video of the person making it. It looked like it took a lot of effort. But you know what other pieces of art that took even more effort? Greek Urns. These magnificent pieces of art have been kept through the centuries as wonders of greek imagination. What I saw in the museum of modern art was a warped, Twisted, And mangled version of that beauty. Very fitting. You reject bad music because it is bad music. Simplicity has nothing to do with it. A simple way of putting it is as if a very bad skater fell down on the ice and got a low score. Whats happening with modern art is if that same skater demanded that their performance scored as high as the most disciplined skater. Eventually it would get to the point where training would be pointless and judging would be pointless. Everyone finds the golden ratio beautiful in some way. Studies have shown that even human faces follow the golden ratio. 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. That would be considered as a fine example of modern art. The paintings message is non-existent but people appreciate it because its semi-realistic. I already gave you an example of what I meant by trashy. Take it or leave it. My final point is that artists have recently been lazy. They scribble on a canvas and expect the viewer to interpret it. An example of this it Robert Rauschenberg's blank white painting sold for millions. I could do the same thing in a few minutes. There is no color, Style, Or effort. He expects you to fill in that big blank gap that the painting left in your mind. Pleasure debating with you.

Are Videogames Art

forfeit eh? pity, i was looking forward to a good response. quicly i will re-iterate my points 1. video games are not quicly i will re-iterate my points 1. video games are not art because they have no value among society or moral. 2. art is imagination, creativity, and meaning. although games were created with this, the games themselves are not art. the game makers themselves are the ones who deserve the credit. 3. Games are fun. alot of peopl will look at this debate and probably think i am against video games. this is intrue, so please judge off of that. I love video games, but i dont think they quite fall under the category of 'art;. thankyou, and i look forward to my opponents refute

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.

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.

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.

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