args

Loving is an art

Contention 1: The Justification of Love - Although people with Savant syndrome cannot be considered the norm, to some degree everyone has something that they are good at with less effort than it would take for someone else to develop that same ability. These cases are extreme, and meant as examples and exceptions to show hat love is not necessarily an art. Loving is an activity, it is something that is done. Contention 2: If they are semantics, I will drop them as semantics are against the rules. Contention 1: It is bound to the burden of the round, the definition of love is the one of mature love: "I need you because I love you". The mother needs her child because she loves her child.The inherent love is not an art. Contention 2: I wasn't arguing that it had to be reciprocal, I was arguing that, although the relationship could not be maintained through a difficulty, it was still love. It was love without meeting your definition of art.

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

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.

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

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.

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