args

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.

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...

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

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.

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.