Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewArt Challenge (1/2)
Ok. This is one of the last two art challenges that I will be able to do... The theme will be PEOPLE(S). No digital art or editing is allowed. Any media shall be allowed. The art pieces can be any size. Each side shall present two art pieces. One piece for each round (r2 &r3) First round is acceptance. The art pieces have to be of your own creation and yours only. Good luck.
Video Games are a form of art.
I have to prove nothing as a majority in order for it to be art... To be belief so is to rationalize in ignorance. An artist determines what is art for he alone can understand why it is considered art to him. A picture is a form of art. The majority of pictures are not looked at that way, but could be, if the said pictures had characteristics that made them beautiful to the observer. A paper cup could be crumpled in such a way to make it look unique then painted a few colors to further this quality, then be looked at as artwork. Artwork does not need to be proven in a majority in order for it to be artwork, as a matter of fact, it is a goal of most artists to create something completely different and unique, something that is not part of the majority of artwork, but a rare beautiful piece in it's own regard. You see... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Majority has nothing to do with it. Someone could build a horse out of glue and beer cans, but that does not mean that the majority of beer cans and glue have to be considered as artwork in order for the horse to be looked at as Artwork does not need to be proven in a majority in order for it to be artwork, as a matter of fact, it is a goal of most artists to create something completely different and unique, something that is not part of the majority of artwork, but a rare beautiful piece in it's own regard. You see... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Majority has nothing to do with it. Someone could build a horse out of glue and beer cans, but that does not mean that the majority of beer cans and glue have to be considered as artwork in order for the horse to be looked at as art. Video games are a form of art because they involve a great amount of things that fall into the realm of artwork. Shapes, colors, sounds, movements, etc. I will give you an example of a video game that I consider to be a modern work of art... Final fantasy XIII for PS3, PC, or XBOX 360. This game is beautiful in every way. The movements, the characters, the dialogue, the music, the world the game is played in, etc. What one person sees a work of art, another sees as nothing artistic at all. A picture of sunset, a horse made of beer cans, the movement of a dancer, the clothing on a fashion model, all of these things fall into the realm of normal accepted art. Movies, pictures, books, music... All of these things make up the accepted majority of art forms. Video games consist of some or all of these elements, and the combination therefor cannot be denied as a form of art.
Video Games are a form of art.
[1] "if anything that were created fell under the definition of art, then not only books or painting but also suitcases, bicycles, plastic cups and literally everything manufactured in some way would count as "art", voiding the word of any usefulness." 1.) I never said that all video games are a great work of art, only that video games in general are a form of art. A suitcase that is designed beautifully and made from alligator skin is a work of art, where a plain black suitcase would not have much weight from an artistic point of view in todays world. A fancily designed bicycle with 3 seats that is made of gold could most assuredly be called a work of art, where a plain red bicycle might not carry the same artistic weight. I plain plastic cup might not be considered very artistic, but a cup made from plastic that is made into the shape of a lion's head, could most definitely considered art. Literally everything that is created or manufactured could be looked at as a great work of art, or not, but it is all in the personal perspective of the observer that gives it such a definition. Maybe you did not see the first video games as a work of art, but ask someone else, someone in the computer field from before video games were around what they think... they very well might say, "What you did with this computer code was a work of art". [2] "Firstly, it is only relatively recently that games have become visually what anyone would consider to be beautiful. For example, to take a random example, outdated games like this one would not be considered beautiful by any standard measure of the term" My opponent assumes his measurement for determining beauty is universal. There is no standard measurement for the term beauty, to assume so, is a stance of ignorance. I was around when the first video games were being made and played. I felt the games I was playing were very beautiful indeed and this was before Nintendo 64. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... And so is art
Modern art.
"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. " Okay, So I don't want to be obtuse and act like I don't understand your point. I'm a musician, So I too have snobbishly rejected music that was overly simplistic or what you would call "trashy" The thing about art is it's not just one thing. So I would say that while it's okay to have a standard, Which judgements made of this standard COULD be objective even if the standard itself is subjective, We should also acknowledge that sending a message is okay too. It really depends on the message. I would say that if the art made is coherent and not just random lines, Then it should be respected. That is the bare standard that i could accept. "The golden ratio is a great example of transcendant beauty. I don't know a single person who does not find flowers beautiful. " This is the argument from ignorance fallacy, AKA the pesonal incredulity fallacy. You're basically saying that you can't imagine how somebody can't find the golden ratio beautiful, But it's stilll subjective. Plus everyone likes it for a different reason if they like it at all. I don't find flowers partiularly beautiful (Yeah, I know, I'm a monster) but I find the ratio itself beautiful becase I love math. Also, Doesn't the golden ratio have a more popular name? Just a side note. I had a friend into metaphysics who use to talk about it all the time and how it shows up everywhere. Nature is fun. I want to adress the comment you made about the David being a really expensive hunk of stone. You say beauty is transcendant, But millions of people have found beauty in the david and you haven't. Doesn't that hurt your case? If beauty is transcendant, Then it should be universally agreed upon, But nobody can agree with anything, Hence why this website exist. Lol. I'm sure you're famiar with warhal's campbell soup painting. I found it to be stupid, But peole liked it. It's all subjective and we should respect people's opinions instead of saying they're being "trashy" or not artistic. Your floor :)
Bioshock is a work of art
1) Con states: "Museums also combine mediums of many different art forms, because of this should we call museums art? No." Actually, putting together a gallery in a museum is considered a form of art, known as curating. Also, notice film combines image, text, and sound; it combines different art forms in one. Video games do the same thing. There is nothing about combining different artistic mediums that suddenly makes the end-combination non-artistic. On the contrary, combination of artistic mediums can itself be an artistic technique and form of artistic expression. 2) Whether you rescue the Little Sisters or harvest them, the game evokes emotion in the player in the same way a film evokes emotion from viewers and a poem evokes emotion from readers. 3) Con states that, once someone interacts with art, they do not receive the "maker's emotions." According to Con, "Once you actively change the art, it then stops being art." First: many works of art have been changed to create new works of art. There is no reason to assume art would stop being art simply because we change it. Second: what reason is there to believe "interacting" with art somehow makes it not art? Consider: When I see a film, I interact with it by bringing my own personal views and history, and combining my personal identity with the film's identity. There is a structure to the experience of ALL art: a creator, the artwork itself, and the person who experiences the art. For any artwork to be experienced, it requires all three of those structures. Think about it this way: When you go to a museum and see a Picasso painting, do you have the same experience the 2nd and 3rd time you see the same Picasso painting? No, because each time you see the painting, you are a different person. Each painting affects each person differently because each person's history, identity, mood, and overall well-being influences the way the artwork affects people. The point is: the way each individual interacts with the artwork is different, and that way of interacting determines the experience of the artwork. But that doesn't mean the art itself "stop beings art." Con's claims are completely unsubstantiated. 4) When Con states -- "if he has to make choices and has options that affect the result, then it is not linear any longer. If a game is nonlinear, then it gives the audience options and these options then affect the result of the game, then it is no longer art" -- Con completely misrepresents what I stated in R2 and misunderstands what makes art art. I was arguing that the player's "choices" and "options" were an illusion. BioShock thematizes the player's desire for freedom by creating the feeling and emotion that player's have made decisions for themselves. But in the key twist in the narrative, the player realizes that every single action, choice, and decision they have made was actually chosen for them. At the key moment, when Ryan utters the words, "would you kindly," he commands the player to kill him. The game takes away control of the player-character from the player, and the player watches as he kills Ryan without wanting to. The player realizes everything he has done up till that point was commanded by Atlas. But the game doesn't stop there. It choreographs a narrative turn, where the player is freed from following commands, but the player is now brutally aware of the fact that this is a linear game. The player now knows that any illusion of choice and freedom in the game is just that, an illusion. Hence, the game plays off the player's desire for freedom, and uses that tension to force the player to reflect on free will, freedom, determinism, linearity and non-linearity. Now, Con thinks that non-linear things cannot be art. Why not? There are a large number of non-linear artworks, including many films and poems. Anything written by the so-called LANGUAGE poets in the 80s and 90s is completely non-linear, and the non-linear post-modern novels of writers like David Foster Wallace. Or take the films of Godard and Tarantino, which are often non-linear. Or take a look at some of the great contemporary "time-artists," who create art that thematizes non-linearity in time. Or finally, the photography of Andreas Gursky, which is often considered non-linear. Clearly, art can be non-linear. 5) In closing, I bring readers attention to Con's final statement in R3: "I realize my first argument was quite weak." Con concedes that his argument in R2 was weak, and therefore, Con completely abandons it in R3. So, I clearly won R2. Now, in R3, my opponent again gives a very weak argument, as I have shown in this round by systematically addressing each of Con's points. BioShock is a work of art. Nothing Con has claimed challenges that fact. The resolution is affirmed.
Graffiti is art
I will be in favour of graffiti being art. Anyone is welcome to this debate.
Art has many purposes
Art is essentially the physical expression of ANY concept or idea- be it beauty, death etc. Some of the most powerful works of art would not be considered beautiful- for example the work of Francis Bacon- but are held in high regard because of the ability of the artist to convey a sense of something. While many works of art convey a sense of beauty, it is certainly not the only purpose of art as a whole.
Art is essential to life.
Art is essential to life becouse we almost can not imagine the world without art. Art makes the world the real world . Besides, every native person is known with its arts that comes from their own ancestors such as painting is most striking example.pictures that is painted by painters openly shows the life of our ancestors or also through the painting we can relax as we are listening the music or even more. so, anyway the art is essential life of our world.
Video Games are an art form.
You have some interesting points, thank you for posting. First, I would like to refute the arguments that you gave. A:Video games have goals All forms of art have goals, the only difference is that it is up to the player whether or not these goals are reached. In the Odyssey, the goal was to get Odysseus home. In Titanic, the goal was for Jack and Rose to survive the sinking. In all other art forms, it is up to the creator whether or not these goals are obtained, but the goals are still there. B:Deliberation What about cinema and photography? The first movie was not accidentally shot, then shown in movie theaters. The first photograph was taken deliberately. Yet both of these are considered art forms in today's society. Photography can be taken randomly, but the odds that it is admired among many people is highly unlikely. C:Creators of art Cinema and Drama both take many participants to make a masterpiece. Video games can be created by one man, but more than likely, it will suck. The same is true with Cinema and Drama. I think that the interaction of the gamers make it even closer to an art form. The creator must choose how the player interacts with the game, and this could make or break a game from becoming a masterpiece. It's just like an artist choosing the perspective angle of his drawing. Most forms of art also leave somethings up to the audience to determine. An example of this would be Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and The Sea. It is up to the reader to determine if his final trip was a success or a failure. It depends on who you are on how the story ends. I also believe the goals you mentioned are also important to the art form. These goals determine how difficult the game is, and therefore determines that type of player that will enjoy the game the most. All forms of art have the same aspects. It depends on how funny a movie is to determine the type of people who will enjoy it. It depends on the detail of the painting to determine it's audience. It depends on the wording of a novel to determine if a kid is going to read it. These goals also could pertain to the story, making them all the more essential. I am also a lover of video games, and I realize their potential. If you have ever played Bioshock, it would be apparent that video games have the potential to have just as great artistic values as any other art form. People claim that most video games do not share these artistic values, but then I would like to point out that all art forms have it's crap. Cinema: Epic Movie, Twilight, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. Literature: Twilight. Music: rap. No art genre is perfect, and video games are no exception. But they are the newest of art forms, so we need to give it some time to evolve.
CMV: Art without any purpose whatsoever isn't art, but worthless trash
I've heard some people say that art doesn't need to have any purpose, but I disagree with that. Artist can have many goals in their mind: 1. Making it pretty - there is nothing wrong with using art as a tool to make your surrounding look prettier 2. Making it thought provoking - art being used as means of conveying some ideas makes perfect sense 3. Recording historical events - stuff like paintings showing some important historical events can be very interesting I've probably omitted many more possible "goals", but you should get my point. Usually there is a purpose, no matter how trivial. Now lets come to my point - what about art that has no purpose? It simply exists, doing literally nothing. My favourite example is when someone left his [glasses](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/pair-of-glasses-left-on-us-gallery-floor-mistaken-for-art) on the floor in an art galerry, and visitors thought that it was an art piece as well. If someone was to try and make an interpretation of it, they could probably come up with many theories. Anyone could take a random picture or place a few objects randomly, and we could come up with a reasonable interpretation tricking ourselves into thinking that we were looking at actual art. That's why I believe that art needs to have some purpose, otherwise literally anything in our surroundings could be categorized as art EDIT: just to clarify things, my main point is that there is no art without any purpose
Graffiti is art
Art is an expression of beauty. How is something that disrupts some type of work already present a source of beauty? It is a distraction.
Loving is an art
Rebuttal Contention 1: The Justification of Love: If there are different stages that must happen for mature love to take place as you say, then how does this require skill and practice? The roadmap is already laid out, all there is to do is follow it. It is a prescribed sequence of events. Motherly love is not necessarily a form of love that is simply given. If so, then why would there be mothers who harm their children? If it is a given that you love them, then your definition of mature love would also state that you would need them. Falling in Love- You've already stated that the art of it comes in later, so there isn't much for me to refute here. Maintaining Love Through a Difficulty- Reconciling problems in a relationship is not required for love to be an art; if it were, then what about people who do not view their differences as problems? They need each other because they love each other, not because "He doesn't cheat on me" or "She always cleans her room". In this case, it is immature love. The mature love is present, the maintenance of the relationship is the If so, then why would there be mothers who harm their children? If it is a given that you love them, then your definition of mature love would also state that you would need them. Falling in Love- You've already stated that the art of it comes in later, so there isn't much for me to refute here. Maintaining Love Through a Difficulty- Reconciling problems in a relationship is not required for love to be an art; if it were, then what about people who do not view their differences as problems? They need each other because they love each other, not because "He doesn't cheat on me" or "She always cleans her room". In this case, it is immature love. The mature love is present, the maintenance of the relationship is the art. Contention 2: "if all prongs are met for mature love to take place, but the love is only directed towards one person; it is not truly love, but a symbiotic attachment" A symbiotic attachment would require the person you love to love you back, which is not necessarily the case, meaning love of only one person is not necessarily of a symbiotic nature. It is still the same love, only on a more limited scale. While it may be "a fairly hefty deed", that alone does not make it impossible, only improbable and difficult. If one practices and develops enough skill to love people, then it could be possible for them to love any person they encounter. Arguments Contention 1: Mothers- Mothers love their children, but they do not need them. They can put them up for adoption, if they choose. Yet they don't because they love them without first needing them, making their love mature love. If a mothers love is simply given (as you said in your segment about falling in love), then they do not have to work at it, making it not an art. Contention 2: In the case of a person who loved their husband/wife, but still ended the relationship in a divorce, the love can meet the definition of mature love without meeting the definition of an art. Let's say there is a man who loved his wife very much, and he did not love her because he needed her, he needed her because he loved her. He loved many other people, so his love could not be considered a symbiotic attachment. His wife decided she no longer loved him back and she wanted a divorce. He tried to maintain the relationship because he loved her, but it didn't work. Although his mature love for her is still present, it is no longer a skill he practices, and so no longer an art.
Bioshock is a work of art
I will let you start the arguments because you are the pro. I will argue more on the side of that video games in general are not art, which Bioshock is included in. Also we can argue on the definition of art, because there is much controversy and debate on the actual definition of art.
Brewing is an art form
So, what you are now saying is that there is "craft brewing" - which you consider art - while you fully admit that there is commercial brewing, which is not. I'm sorry, but that is a full concession of this debate. You resolution says "Brewing is an art form". You admit that brewing exists which is not an art form: "While the BMC (Bud, Miller, Coors) brewers may produce beer for money for intoxicating beverages, craft brewers do not." You even admit that "craft brewing" only account for a fraction of the market, making it the exception to the rule: "According to the Craft Brewers Association, up until last year, the maximum number of barrels allowed to be produced in order to be called a craft brewery is 2 million barrels. After Samuel Adams produced over that 2 million barrels, the number was pushed to 6 million barrels. However, this is still well under the amount of barrels produced by BMC's." So, there is a tiny fraction of beer being produced for non-profit reasons. While beer - on the broad perspective - is not brewed for any other than market reasons, without artistic intent. This clearly must lead to the conclusion that the "art" lies not with the BREWING, but a few, singled-out brewers, who try to turn brewing into a form of art, but so far have not in the least achieved that goal. You may want to counter that any form of art can be abused to create marketable products, like you might consider "writing" a form of art, while instruction booklets, political pamphlets and the like are not art. But there are many, many non-profit works of writing out there, especially since the possibility of self-publishing via Internet (commonly called "blogging") has become a mass phenomenon. But in the case of brewing, it's the other way 'round: a few select people brew for fun and claim it to be art because they don't make a profit, if I take you correctly? That alone does not make an art form. Because if that were all it needed, as I pointed out above already, ANYTHING would be a form of art, the whole debate would become trivial and pointless. For EVERY activity on this world, there will be a small minority not willing to make money from it, professing to want to improve the quality of their craft, raise interest or just do their best as opposed to commercial competitors. So, is everything art? Apparently, you don't believe so, because otherwise you would not have instigated this debate in the first place. This makes it clear that you already conceded this debate. For you further points: I would not even need to counter those now anymore, but I will address each shortly: Calling alcohol the by-product of intentional fermentation is downright silly. Beer is brewed in order to achieve alcohol. It's the very idea of fermentation. Why brew beer in the first place if the alcohol was just a by-product? Why then DRINK the stuff? Alcohol is poison, as shown above. I refuse to take this part seriously until you back it up with any source on the origins of your alleged art. For all I know, beer was discovered in Africa accidentally, when grain got infested with yeast. People didn't know that a poison had been created within and drank the stuff, becoming intoxicated. I read this in a book on the culture of the Dogon of Mali once, but this is a part I can't back up. I don't have to, anyway, because this debate is over, as stated above. Not every product of art is drunk or eaten after completion. Who eats a painting? Nobody. And you know why? It's poisonous, with lead colours and other components. If brewing was an art and alcohol a mere by-product, people would not drink beer. They would store it like old wine, never to open the bottles. Craft does not equal art. If every craft produced art, we'd be right back at the triviality of this debate. I agree that all real forms of art CAN be used in ways detrimental to society. Alcohol, however, can quite contrarily not be used for any purposes beneficial to society. That is why alcohol is forbidden in many contexts. This proves that producing a drink containing alcohol cannot be form of art. I am unfamiliar with the term "offcianatos". Are these people who drink wine in the office? Art beer fans are obviously not there for the look of beer, since it bears great likeness to fresh urine. On beer and water: "The pilgrims got the heave ho from the Mayflower because they were out of time, not out of beer." http://www.fermentarium.com... So says your own source. And just to make that clear: you say brewing was a life-saver, right? Then it wasn't ART, because now, brewing is lacking the artistic intent again. The intent was to make a drinkable beverage. Clearly not art, but purely practical. Adding a particular flavour is then all the artistic freedom allowed, see? It's like claiming that sweeping the floor is a form of art because there are so many brooms to choose from. Again, if that makes art, then this is a trivial debate: everything is art. Compare your beer prices to wines and you'll see how cheep it is. Let's take a look on an auction site: Wine: http://www.sothebys.com...={e}AUC&showPast=true&resultSections=departments%3Blocations%3Btopics&filterExtended=true&search=&keywords=&lots=&ascing=desc&orderBy=date&lowPriceEstimateUSD=&highPriceEstimateUSD=&artists=&genres=&types=&mediums=&locations=&departments={d}wine&topics=¤cy=USD&part=true&from=0&to=12&isAuthenticated=false Top price: close to 2 million Beer: Oh, none to be found! In other words: not worth auctioning. The brewer is totally out of the picture: he does the same movements every day. The craft is in the foreground. Does Jim Koch have the freedom to do something different because he's in the mood? Can he do something crazy, like a painter? No! He has to adhere to the recipe as precisely as possible. He can't go crazy like some real artist would eventually do, as I described above. I do not deny brewing having select qualities of arts. I deny brewing the status of a full-fledged art, which is the topic here I have a head, which is a quality of a dog. Does that make me a dog? Of course not! I do not care for idealistic splinter groups of guerrilla art brewers. This debate is about the act of brewing, which you claim to be a form of art of its OWN right. Which you already admitted it's not. With the introduction of the new definition "microbreweries" you have just admitted this again. There's brewing - which has qualities in common with an art - and there's "microbrewing" - to which I would willingly admit as a form of art. But not brewing as a whole, as you so boldly claimed. I took this debate because of your anniversary, hoping for a good fight. You still have time to turn this around. Make it count!
Art debate
here is my art https://lh3.googleusercontent.com... wuz goooooooood!!!!!! you jelly of mai skilzz?
Video Games are an art form.
Thank you once again for the debate and thank you for a timely response. A: Video Games have goals You stated that all forms of art have goals, and you listed the Odessey and the Titanic as examples. When you listed these, I think that you may have misunderstood my argument. With the Odyssey and the Titanic, the goal can be interpreted any way one chooses. For example, in the Titanic, one might interpret the goal to be for the Titanic to sink. Others might think the goal is for Rose and Jack to fall in love. With all forms of art, it is up to the observer to interpret. In video games, this is not the case. If you do not interpret the video game in the sense that the video game created sought it to be, i.e. getting passed missions, then the video game does not proceed until you have accomplished this goal. Often times, there are even time limits on achieving these goals to further encourage doing the missions at a faster rate of speed. You can sit and look at a painting for hours and interpret it in all sorts of ways, but if you don't take the bomb to the checkpoint in 60 seconds in a video game, it'll blow up in your face. B: Deliberation You brought up cinema and photography as examples of things that could not happen in nature. This is not true. One could say the first movie was the memory of an event that took place. What was that memory? A series of picture played in the mind in a certain order that recalls the event. Thus, recalling the first time one drove a car would be an example of cinematica art. Same applies for photography. C: Creators of Art Once again, I believe you may have misinterpreted my argument. When I brought up this point, I was not refering to the numbers of creators. Allow me to try and explain it again. In standard art forms, the creator creates and and the observer observes. But in video games, the creator creates and the observer (gamer) can both observe (play) and interact (create) with the game. This differenciates video games from standard art forms, for video games allow the user to change and interact with the game, but standatd art forms do not allow the observer to change or interact with the art form. I like your argument about the perspective of the painting, but that does not go as far as to decide how the observer inteprets the painting, as does the game creator force the gamer to interpret the game. Also, the goals of a video game force the gamer to interpret it the way the creator wishes. In the examples provided, you mainly discussed the entertainment value of standard art forms, but video games have a measure of how entertaining they are to the gamer as well. Also, a kid can read a college level novel and interpret it as gibberish (we all know we tried when we were little lol), but in a video game the same kid needs to accomplish goals, i.e. interpret the game as the creator wishes, to continue to observe and interact with the game. I'm sorry to say that I have never played Bioshock, but I am an avid player of Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. It's graphics, and the graphics of other video games, may be interpreted as forms of art, but that is seperating the graphics from the sounds, gameplay, storyline, and other aspects of the video game. Seperatetly, they may be considered art forms, but video games are a bundle package. By throwing all of the aspects of art in one package, it disallows video games to be a form of art. I would also like to ask you to clarify why you brought up that all forms of art have their 'crap'. Yes, its true, you and many others would consider video games to be the newest forms of art, but the fact is that their not. Video games are much different from the standerd art forms, and though their individual aspects are forms of art, the bundle package defeats the purpose of an art form. I stand in firm resolution that video games are not forms of art, and thus urge the voters to vote Con.
art is needed in todays society
First off, our lives ARE fast-paced. But you have provided no evidence that a STEADY DECLINE of art previlence has occured over the years. If it has always been this way, there is no problem. You use "we" implying ALL of us have forgotten art. Which i do not believe. The reason some have "forgotten" about art is that we don't need it. We have lives, and families to worry about. With inflation and rising cost of living, we must spend our time with work and things to pleasure us on off time. If "We" don't do art, than it doesnt matter. We don't gain.
art is needed in todays society
Greetings. First, I would like to thank my opponent for extending this debate to any member of this website. With that said, let us proceed: In my opponent's opening argument, he commits the fallacy "argument ad baculam" in claiming that all of society will be doomed if it does not involve itself with art. His claim is no more than a scare tactic as there is no evidence to suggest that society will be dommed without art. In fact, the human body needs many things to survive, but certainly not art; the human body needs food, water, oxygen, and nutrition, but it certainly won't be doomed due to the lack of art. The second problem with my opponent's opening argument is that he presents no evidence that art is even needed in order for a society to maintain itself. The third problem with my opponent's argument is that he presents no evidence that art is on the decline in today's society. Not only that, but there is actually evidence against his claim. Both video games and films are important part of our culture. Proof can be seen in the fact that the entertainment is one of the most thriving industries in our society. For these reasons, you should vote against my opponent's case.
Picture Art is no longer a job.
I will first respond to my opponent's rebuttals, Then move onto reconstructing my contentions. My opponent has responded to my criticism of his limited scope by pointing to the fact that Tumblr and DeviantArt are two of the most major art websites, And that because they are in decline, The profession of art is in decline. Well, Even if we are to ignore the fact that Tumblr was never designed to be an image sharing website for artists, We can see a flaw in these examples: they were never supposed to be reliable sources of income. Although DeviantArt has donation pools, Its primary purpose is as a sharing platform, A type of social media for artists. It is incorrect to assume that just because a sharing site is in decline, The profession as a whole is. Instagram is a photo sharing site. Let's assume that it started failing; does that mean that private photography studios around the world are also failing? What of the photographers which were already successful before Instagram, And would still be successful after this collapse, As many DeviantArt artists are? I asked my opponent to not look at the failure of these sites, But instead broaden his scope to the profession as a whole, Or at least where the money is. He has failed to do so. In my previous argument, I gave my opponent some reasons why people still buy art today. Although there are more reasons than the ones I mentioned, The responses my opponent gave to the ones provided were unsatisfactory. 1. In response to people buying art to decorate their homes, The proposition asked for a statistic that new art was being brought. The opposition has given a clear statistic of the Art Market increasing by 12% this past year, Which shows more people are buying art and appreciating it. More statistics will be given in the reconstruction. 2. In response to website design, My opponent has stated that they imagine that the "only art any website would need is a logo" and that the usage of templates would be enough for minor websites. Two things for this. One, There are more artistic aspects to a website than just the logo. Buttons, Fonts, And layouts are all part of website design, And many pay artists good money to design and craft more than just a logo. Two, In regards to the minor websites, Who makes the templates? Artists! Wix, A template website, Has a team of professional artists which design new templates each month. This response is only backing up the opposition's side. ' 3. In response to me stating that people pay artists to see their ideas in reality, I apologize for vagueness. I was referring to how writers, Game engineers, And other creative people often pay artists to work on long term projects to see their characters or worlds in reality. If we take a look at Japan, Light novelists often reach out to animation studios to see if they can get their characters in an anime or at least drawn for the cover. My opponent's response to my counterargument on originality is half-hearted at best. He states that although an artist's work is "far from lazy", He would hardly call it original. This is a subjective standard of the opponent. To be honest, It was incorrect on both sides to assume that they could label "originality". A better response to this would be to realize that even if art IS lacking in originality, If it sells, It is still a valid profession. The opposition would request voters to ignore the arguments of originality on both sides as it not relevant in how art is a profession and thus outside of the scope of this debate. My opponent's response to my statistic is to again point to the two websites of Tumblr and DeviantArt. Again, Just because these two individual websites are failing, Does not mean that art as a profession is not valid. My opponent has provided no satisfactory response in regards to this. My opponent's response to the contention of an artist being well paid for his work was that it "doesn't debunk the argument that it is dying". The opposition is very confused as to why it would not be the case. If a profession pays well, Doesn't that mean that it is still a valid job option? There is no logic behind this rebuttal. In regards to my contention about how art is evolving, My opponent has stated that it is irrelevant to whether it's collapsing or not. I would like to know the reason why. A profession that can adopt to the societal and technological changes a society goes through over time is bound to stay healthy. I would request my opponent to look at this contention as more than just "art reverting to the web" and instead focus on the artistic developments in both technique and mediums that are emerging yearly. Given that my opponent has not reconstructed any of his original arguments, I will take it as he has given them up to the opposition. Now to reconstruct my initial arguments: 1. There is still a huge audience for art. Despite what my opponent may think about art dying because DeviantArt and Tumblr's popularity is declining, Statistics say otherwise. In addition to the 12% rise in the Art Market which my opponent failed to respond adequately to, The opposition would like to also point out to how the median income for artist in the US according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is $53, 400. In other countries, Such as Korea and Japan, This number is higher. The total number of art sales is estimated to be about 64 billion this year alone. The opposition has now proven that there is not only still an audience for art, But that the income from art is livable. 2. The profession is evolving and changing. As mentioned previously, Art is a very flexible profession. In addition to the huge shift to the internet, New artistic techniques are being developed or rediscovered all the time. Take for example Kintsugi in Japan, Or the art of breaking a bowl and reattaching the fragments with gold or silver paste. This technique has resurfaced in recent years, And Kintsugi artists receive very livable incomes because each piece is so difficult to make. This is only one example of many in how art adapts to trends. In the place of traditional artists we see new artists with different techniques, Different mediums, And different uses. 3. An artist is well paid for his work. The opposition has already answered the counterpoint to this claim. The statistics provided in contention 1 are direct evidence that being just an artist is financially feasible, Which is the heart of this debate. If artists can survive by just producing art, There is no need for part time jobs as my opponent has claimed in his introduction. My opponent has stubbornly held onto his view that because art sharing websites are dying, Art as a profession is dying. My opponent has also inadequately addressed the economic statistics and logic that the opposition has provided (which is what the heart of debate should be when discussing job feasibility) while pointing to arbitrary and subjective views of originality and reasons for purchasing art. Because of this, I would like to request all voters vote for the opposition.
Art rules.
Your argument is essentially that Art is awesome. However, not all things that are awesome, rule. That makes your argument invalid.
