args

Performing Arts (Dance, Music, Theatre) Are More Challenging Than Visual Art or Film Production.

The 3 performing arts: dance, music & theatre, are more challenging than the other 2 arts: Visual arts and Film Production. Performing arts put you on the spot, whereas the other 2 art forms do not. Dancers, musicians & actors have live audiences a majority of the time, putting an extreme amount of pressure on them to do their performance perfectly. If they make a mistake, there's no going back to fix it and it is what it is. That also adds to the amount of skills needed to be a master of your art form when a performing artist compared to a visual artist or film producer; performing artists need to have the skill of improvisation. If a mistake is made, that skill needs to be there to back them up. Visual artists can go back and fix a mistake if it happens to be made, and film producers can do "takes", where if mistakes are made they easily have another chance to re-do it. The performing arts are more physically demanding & exhausting compared to the other 2 art forms. The performance anxiety & stress that comes along with performing is exhausting. Performing artists have more of a chance of having to deal with an injury while performing (eg. Musicians: Carpal Tunnel, Dancers: just about anything, Actors: Vocal Chords), adding even more stress to their performance. Performing artists seem to put more hours of demanding work in per week than the other 2 art forms do. I'm not stating that the 3 performing arts put more hours in per week as a general total, but the amount of hours that performing artists put in per week, a high percentage of that is hard, demanding work, whereas visual artist's and film producer's work week isn't as demanding. 1. Dancers Dancers have to pull off extreme physical strength & stamina, as well as emotional strength, as they are both athletes and artists. Schuyver ("Why Beginners Quit Dancing") states that "out of 1,000 folks who think they might enroll in a dance class, perhaps 50 will actually do it. Of these brave 50, only 30 or so will finish the beginner series. Of the 30 only 20 will return for intermediate classes. After 1 year, maybe 10 will still be dancing." Enrolling in dance brings along large amounts of anxiety, the fear of rejection, hard to prepare & manage it, failure to practice and not a continuous motivation to keep-at-it. Becoming a very skilled dancer cannot simply be done only based on talent; it takes a tremendous amount of work & dedication to be one of the best. 2.Musicians One of the coolest things about music is that reading music is like reading a completely different language. Picking up music theory is a very strenuous task, and the musician must be skilled in this to be able to perform to their very best ability. To be able to play the instrument profoundly, musicians must have a good sense of coordination, timing & be very aware of their surroundings. Hitting one wrong note, pressing a key at the incorrect time or if playing in a group the musician starts to play their part at the incorrect time...all of these factors can contribute to a bad performance. Those are only a few of the factors that musicians must endure while performing. Their performances are stressful; they must be able to read the sheet music they have in front of them while putting on a performance. And if sheet music is not available for that specific performance, then they must have it implanted in their brains and then perform it on top of that as well. 3. Actors/Actresses One of the things that really comes to me when I think about the difficulty of acting is having to completely come out of your "safety bubble" and give absolutely no cares as to what other people are thinking about you. Actors must be intelligent, versatile, have great memories, amazing imaginations, be able to think fast on their feet, adapt & learn quickly, and have lots of patience. Acting is as if the actor is switching out of their own personality and turning into someone else for the time period of the performance. As I spoke earlier about improvisation, actors must be able to improve based upon how their character would respond to the certain situation, not themselves. Actors must be so absorbed into their assigned character that they become them. The people who hire actors are also very specific as to what they're looking for. One person may think that you're extremely talented and definitely going places, where someone else may tell you that you're awful and never going to make it in the big leagues. Actors must keep the self-motivation levels very high at all times. Any art requires skill & talent, and to some it comes naturally and others not so much. But I do believe that the performing arts require more difficult tasks to be accomplished while on the job and while out of the job (eg. practicing, staying in the right mind set...).

Sword Art Online was a horrible show

I'm really sorry about my opinionated arguments before, that was a simple mistake that I'll try to correct right now. I'm well aware that my "arguments" were just simple claims which seemed opinionated but it was because the circumstances in which I was writing them. Now I'll try to back them up. What I meant by characters being bland and boring, I meant, from a storytelling standpoint, they just weren't good characters. What do we really know about Kirito? I can't really name a character trait to describe him, besides bland. Only thing we know about him that he is pretty determined, is knowledgeable of video games and loves Asuna. What are his weaknesses, fears, actual traits we can't really say. Where was a point in anime where he showed some dominant trait? We can't say that being "normal" gives him any sort of character. People aren't normal, people are interesting, with unique traits, fears and dreams for every of them. Kirito isn't really much of a character than more of a person that does stuff. What are his bad traits? What are his good traits? We can't really say. And that's a big problem when we talk about making characters. Also, character development and being influenced by an other character is not an excuse for making a character bland. A character can change while being deep, well built and interesting. Excuse me, but I watched both No Game No life and Attack On Titan and can say that both of those shows have really good, or at least sufficient pacing. Why? Because the action doesn't skip randomly every two episodes. Sword Art Online has horrible, and I mean horrible pacing. First Kirito fights a boss, then we suddenly see him join a guild when he is far far more powerful. Then suddenly, we see him arguing with Asuna, how did they meet again? We don't really know! Such way of pacing the show is just confusing and not very good. Third, what I meant was, SAO in the first episodes seemed to target something more than simple love/action story. It established an interesting setting with an interesting idea that seemed would eventually grow into something bigger. Then it just completely wasted it, focusing on completely different subject that they at first went out with. SAO drew the viewers in with it's idea and setting, and then just changed the focus all of sudden. Fourth, SAO has a lot of silly moments in it, taking the subject matter at hand you can't avoid it. Taking something that is basically a video game really seriously is hard to pull off. But if in the first season the dialogue has only some silly moments so I let it pass, but the second season... oh boy. With all the tension of death in a video game removed, you can't really treat characters treating a video game so seriously serious. Crying over a player who suffers only death penalty, with no pain (because as we know from the show, the players don't suffer pain in virtual reality MMO ) is really cheesy. Fifth, what I again meant, was that a really bland character, with no interesting traits having a harem comes out as silly and unnecessary to the story itself. The harem stories could just as good not be in here, actually it would be better if instead of showing love-stories with new girls they focused more on the setting, story and used the resources that they used on that, on fixing the pacing. As it is now it serves as a really uninteresting filler. Sixth, as though the experiences they come across are indeed pretty original and interesting, the relation between them just isn't. A romance is based mostly on interesting characters and relations between them. How they come across different troubles, issues and problems that they face together, sharing their experiences, problems, worries and also dreams, having disagreements with each other which come from their differences in character, evolving and changing thanks to their relationship, trying to keep it alive however they can. But if the characters are bland, the whole story just falls through. And while the experiences they come across may be interesting, their relationship most definitely isn't. Seventh, the complete change of tone and setting removed all the tension from the show. We have a wonderful setting, a group of people is trapped in a deadly MMO that kills the people when they die in game. We have far more interesting, and mysterious villain and we suddenly change it all, removing the core idea from the show, making the characters suddenly not need to worry about their lives and the old villain, for a new one who is completely cartoonishly evil . This is a huge awkward tonal shift and from a storytelling standpoint has really no sense. The villain has nothing interesting about him in sense of character. He is just an evil pervert that no viewer can really like, or at least think of him as a cool character. He has completely no good traits and really does completely nothing. There were of course, completely evil characters with no redeemable traits done well, but they had an original idea behind them that made them stand out, their motivations, the way that they done things were interesting. The villain of the second show really isn't like that. Again really sorry for arguments being opinionated but I was just stupid for making arguments very late when I don't think properly. Anyways, high rating of a show doesn't necessarily make it good. Good reviews also don't make a show necessarily good. Let's remember that both the viewers and reviewers are still humans with different opinions who see things differently. And if asked if so many people really can be wrong? Yes they can. Democracy has proved many times that the most, isn't always right. There are many works of fiction that have large numbers of fans and still are bashed by the critics and considered among the worst things that have been ever created (example "Twilight"). Last thing I want to say, just to make it clear, I don't hate SAO and actually enjoyed it a lot, but still consider it a bad show despite of that. Back to you con.

If nervegear existed would people use it to evil end like in SAO (Sword Art Online)

I wish good luck to Kastorian in this debate and all debates to come. For those that do not know what nervegear is search up Sword Art Online Anime. Now on to the debate. I believe that if someone created Nervegear (the same one from SAO) people would do the same thing in SAO to the one in real life because there is always going to be evil people in the world and it would be inevitable that this would happen. I believe that if this was used correctly it would be brilliant but someone out their will use this for evil ends. In the books and the anime Aincrad was the name of a giant floating castle in a game and if you died in the game you die in real life.

CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.

So I've always had the idea feed to me that art/artists are actually useful to the world because they can change it in, even if that is in subtle ways. For example maybe lots of people read Twelve Years a Slave (Not a work of fiction yes, but it is ultimately a story that is being told) and they decide 'Oh man, slavery is terrible.' And as a result more people support abolition, and thus slavery is eventually abolished. But this ignores the harsh realpolitik reality behind societal change. Possibly the biggest thing that actually gave the impulse to end slavery was the desire for increased profits. Noam Chomsky has even talked about how the black people in the north were often stuck in poverty, and often with a quality of life even more abhorrent than those enslaved in the south (to be clear, neither Chomsky nor myself are endorsing the institution of slavery). So it was the cynical greed of northern capitalists/industrialists, whom actually held a massive amount of private power in terms of wealth/influence, that probably had a far greater impact on the ending of slavery then the likes of Solomon Northup. And we've seen this within the past generation. During the Bush era/right before it, our culture was FULL of counter culture, that were in some way anti-establishment/anti-capitalist/anti-materialism/anti-consumerist in art and pop culture. For example \*takes breath\* Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, Tool, System of a Down, American Psycho, Fight Club, Rage Against the Machine, American Beauty, and it did NOTHING. And yet all of these were actually quite commercial successful, meaning lots of people were enjoying them. America invaded Iraq, the fascist right is gaining all kinds of power and even though the Democrats have made a victory many, many people within the American establishment just want to let the fascist movement right off the hook. However one thing everyone in power can agree agree on is that Antifa and BLM are the \*real\* enemies, because any group that even has a sniff of pro racial justice/working class justice are fucking terrifying in the face of the elites whom have all of the power to make real change. So someone like Zack de la Rocha is a brilliant individual who can make work of great beauty, but unless if Jeff Bozos and people like him listen to his work, and are really taken by it, then the impact of Rocha's work is going to be minimal. Because you might be embolden by it, \*I\* might be embolden by it, but you and I are unlikely to have any control over policy, and even less control over the massive threatening issues of polluting the environment, or lowering the threat of nuclear war - these two are especially out of our reach because they involve the actions of countries to which we are not apart of, hence we have even less influence. Hell, Orwell even wrote the most anti-fascist book possible, only for the neo-fascists to commandeer it and boil the ideas of Newspeak and Big Brother down to slogans for their own ends (example Jordon Peterson acting as if what we call Trans people is the greatest threat to a peaceful democratic society, and convince others that it's those scary trans people who they should be concerned with). Now my examples are mostly novels, music, and films because these are some of the most popular mediums, and even they seem useless. That means the other mediums: Poetry, Theatre, Sculpting, Painting, matter even LESS because less people care about them. You could write the most brilliant, moving play about racial justice and it doesn't matter because no one in power will see it or care. All of this says to me that if you are an artist, your work will do one of three things. I. Nothing. It will die in obscurity (most of our work will do this). II. It will be turned into propaganda by those in power. III. It will just be enjoyed by people. Which sounds like a good thing, but again, you and I being shocked by the brutality of slavery, or war, as depicted in 12 Years a Slave or Saving Private Ryan, isn't going to do much. It might convince you or I to be nicer to our black neighbor, but unless if you and I the owners of Private prisons and the highest generals in the army see it, then it doesn't matter. And even if such people \*do\* engage with such art, they will be unlikely to dismantle their own positions/power bases because a movie made them cry. So in the end, art is useless and if you embark on being an artist you might as well just jog in place for your entire life because it will accomplish the same thing.