args

Art Challenge

This is an art challenge between my opponent and I. We will both have to create two art pieces Rules: 1. 1st round is acceptance 2. 1 piece in R2 and then R3. 3. Any materials/ media can be used. 4. The pieces have to be your own creation. 5. The pieces can be of any style and size. Good luck!

Picture Art is no longer a job.

Picture Art used to be seen as a huge job that you could be rich if you were good enough, But now ¨art¨ as a job is dead, Allow me to make my points There's no reason to buy Picture art. People used to buy art because of 1 or 2 reasons: It was painted well, And it had some deep meaning behind it, Well, In present time we no longer have those reasons to buy art. you can find decent painted art with a simple Google search nowadays, And if you want to keep one who could just save the image in your folders, Sure, You can pay artists to commission, But most of the commissions requested turn out to be fetish requests, It becomes such a problem it makes up over half of Deviantart, Search up anything on there and you'll find at least one fetish picture, And that sort of scares people away from the site. nowadays art with deep meaning is dead, People almost ever make art with meaning, And when they do its usually poorly made, The most meaningful art that has been made nowadays is a furry crying about how they are the punching bag of the Internet (no shade at any furries though, Its just complaining about how your fan base is hated isn't really anything new) No one is interested in Picture art anymore when people look for art, They usually go for styles in cartoons, Anime, And video games, Sometimes even online animation, But most of the Internet are forgetting about art, Deviantart and tumblr are dying, And notebook doesn't have as many users as them because they don't allow fetishes and porn. For Picture Art, Originality is dead go on any picture art website, And its going to be covered with fan art, OCs for their fan art, Fan comics, Fan fiction, Anthro versions of animal characters, The most original things that have Picture Art has is its furry art. if you draw art, I would reccomend you get a backup or secondary job, Because Picture Artists who solely have that job will not make it far I'm afraid.

Video Games are an art form.

I believe that the creation of video games should be considered a form of art. Cinema is an art form, literature is an art form, and photography is an art form. A good video game usually has all of components of the art forms above, like beautiful visuals, enticing story lines, and originality. The only difference between video games and other art forms is that the admiring audience is actually interacting with the masterpiece. So, people argue that the "masterpiece" is different to all people trying to admire it. I argue back that there are paintings that show different concepts to different people. So why are video games not considered art?

Loving is an art

I thank my opponent for her responses! As a brief road-map, I will first be refuting the attacks made on my contentions, and I will proceed to attack my opponent's arguments =Arguments= Pro- Contention 1: Justification of love- The fact that there are so many stages proves that it takes skill an practice. immature love will stay immature love forever if it is allowed to, only with skill (Which comes over time) and Practice can immature love become mature love Motherly Love- When I say motherly love is a given is assumed in the context that the love is there in the first place. Falling in love- This point is conceded Maintaining love through a difficulty- - For those who do not view their differences as a problem, there is no problem to reconcile - Of course they need each other because they love each other, which is why reconciliation of problem is so important. Ultimately my opponent never really makes a valid argument here at all. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- - My opponent is attacking my quote from Erich Fromm out of context; and at that they don't even attack the full quote. the symbiotic attachment isn't to another person, but to ego. Thus it isn't love. - Honestly my the warrant behind my opponent's argument that it isn't a hefty deed proves that loving is an Falling in love- This point is conceded Maintaining love through a difficulty- - For those who do not view their differences as a problem, there is no problem to reconcile - Of course they need each other because they love each other, which is why reconciliation of problem is so important. Ultimately my opponent never really makes a valid argument here at all. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- - My opponent is attacking my quote from Erich Fromm out of context; and at that they don't even attack the full quote. the symbiotic attachment isn't to another person, but to ego. Thus it isn't love. - Honestly my the warrant behind my opponent's argument that it isn't a hefty deed proves that loving is an art; as she says "If one practices and develops enough skill to love people, then it could be possible for them to love any person they encounter." Con- Contention 1: - My opponent's warrant is comprised of broken logic. "they don't need them, but love them anyway so it's not an art"? Simply by making such a statement, you do not prove that love is not an art; all you prove is that motherly love is a more beautiful art. - My opponent claims that if love is simply given it is not an art, this is untrue as it is a correlation causation fallacy. The mother does not begin the process of loving when the child is born, but all throughout her life she is conditioned to love. She is groomed and give the necessary knowledge. Contention 2: - First in the case of the divorce, we must ask the question of whether there was any love in the first place. Many couples get married not out of love; but because they have a child on the way, because they feel they need to, for financial security, because one of them pressured the other into it. - Next we must realize that if a spouse simply "falls out of love" for no reason, it is was more likely than not immature love in the first place; thus not inclusive to this round.

It is impossible to define art

First off, i would like to thank you dullurd for joining my debate. Now in your previous argument you said that it would be less interesting if i were to say art can not be perfictly defined, i totally agree with this, infact most things cannot be perfectly defined. but i also believe that art cannot be defined well. there are so many different kinds of art that finding a few words to describe how one feels about it would be impossible to give it and so called "definition" Now i am glad you agree that with me that art does not nessesairly have to be beautiful, that makes our disscussion a bit easier. now in your previous argument you said you believe art is an expression, now to an extent art can be an expression. but this "definition" does not cover all of the different kinds of art. the definition of expression is.... "The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words, art, music, or movement;a manifestation;" Now with this definition, it would cover such arts as, literature, music, and dance/martial arts/ and so on. now the term manifestation, would reffer to something being revealed as art. i believe that the art dosent nessessairly have to be revealed to become what it is. now i do believe expression would cover some braud parts of art, but like in my previous argument, an expression would have to be a consence act to peform. if you dont know it is happening, than it wouldnt be a liberal expression. Now for me to be one to create art, (like you said in your argument) of course it may seem like art in my eyes, and than someone may say different. this is why one person may not be able to give a definition of what an art is because their views may seem different from the person next to thems. Also (not saying you are but...) if you were to say art can only be created by an artist, or someone whom's goal was to create an art it would be somewhat like discrimination to say a non artist cannot create art, because it may very well be art in their eyes. so in a nutshell, the same definition of art cannot be used for all the different kinds of art, or different people in the world. art would have to be something that each individual has to feel for. but if you were to take the different kinds of art like; photography, painting, cooking, martial art, dance, and so on, and give them each smaller definitions for each of their similarties than you can get a more narrow idea on what art might be, but still you wouldnt be able to define it well enough for all of the arts and for every persons belief. Sorry if this seemed a bit confusion, (im sorry my darn cat annoyed me through the whole thing) but please try and understand my point. I look forward to the conclusion of this debate sincerily - DeATHNOTE

Nude art is good contribution to the world of art

so you say that nude art is as soulless as pornography?First of all by art I do not mean those pictures from magazines under your bed(ones like "Maxim" or "Playboy".)By art I mean paintings, work of mind, skilled arm, and soul.What can you see on photo with naked woman?Let me tell you: reflection of your most secret desires. Painting though reflects model's soul, feelings of painter towards his model, filled with beautiful, clean love...What do you think I would do if naked woman were in front of me?The same thing you would do!And I am talking about art!Really? Then just to let you know, if you don't, first people were naked and were OK with that...They didn't need pornograpy...But then thousands of years later some painter drew a picture of naked woman as just a work of art and crowd that by that time was pretty sexually perverted liked that and made more paintings what later was called pornography... Even in photography, good photographer, shooting a naked woman, tries to focus his camera more on her eyes than on her body...Why does he do that?Because eyes are the mirrors of the soul,and that is what makes his work more perfect among other photograph:his work has a soul as well as a body...Artists thought may be as clear as the sky whne he draws naked woman but people are making his work their "temple" of their wildest dreams...

free admission to art museums

Thanks con for accepting this debate. As Aristotle once said, "Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all. " While things like logic and science educate our minds and teach us to think, There is one educational value that they don"t bring to the table and that is education for the heart. Art, On the other hand does educate the heart by giving the viewer feeling and emotion. It is an effective way to integrate emotion into education. A number of school systems can"t afford to fund art history as a stand alone course, Thus, It is up to museums to provide that sort of educational experience. Unfortunately, Many people simply do not have the financial ability to attend these museums because of the admission cost. They do not have the privilege to see and experience art because of finances. Their education for the heart is very limited. Because of this I am for the resolution, All art museums should have free admission. Observation 1: Definitions Free: Without cost or payment Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, Typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, Producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Admission: the process or fact of entering or being allowed to enter a place, Organization, Or institution. Museum: a building in which objects of historical, Scientific, Artistic, Or cultural interest are stored and exhibited. Source: Dictionary. Com Observation 2: Harms Harm 1: Admission fees cause art museum attendance to reduce dramatically. Support: Price is one of the biggest barriers to people attending museums. For example, If a family of six wanted to have a fun peaceful outing at an art museum and the admission fee was 18 dollars a person, It is going to cost them $100 and they might decide to go to a $42 movie instead. However, If we decided to make art museums free to attend, Most families would choose something free and educational rather than more screen time. Many museums that have altered their admission prices to make them free have experienced a substantial increase in their attendance. For example, When the Dallas Museum of Art put an end to their $10 admission fee, Their total annual attendance skyrocketed from 498, 000 visitors per year, To 668, 000 visitors per year. In addition, The museum experienced a 29% increase in their minority visitors. This isn"t the only museum that has had success with free admissions however. The Victoria and Albert Museum had a 113% increase in attendance when they made their art museum free. Finally, Several art galleries that eliminated their admission fees received a total of 6 million more visits than the year they had admission fees. This justs shows to prove that because a lot of families have financial issues, Free education in the form of art is very attractive to them. In spite of this, Art museums that are free to get into receive a lot more attendance than those that do have admission fees. Source 1: www. Independent. Co Source 2: www. Citylab. Com Harm 2: Putting high costs on admission fees excludes members of the lower class to exposure to creative art. Support: In our society, We have countless people that are talented and gifted in creativity. You will find some of these creative geniuses in the lowest class of our society. These people in particular do not have the financial stability to pay $75 every time their family visits an art museum or even once. In spite of this, These gifted people in the field of art are not obtaining proper exposure to art to inspire their gift. You see, All artists have an inspiration of some sort that urges them to go after their dream. That"s the beginning of where all creative artistry comes from. They are inspired by others works of art, And thus, They decide that that is what they want to imitate. From there, Their talent and natural gift in art does the rest. Some of our most well known artists were inspired themselves by works of art that came before them. For example, Did you know that Van Gogh only began using vibrant colors after exposure to other famous artists such as Gauguin, Monet, And Bernard? This ultimately resulted in one of this most famous paintings titled "The Sunflower" in which he used brighter, Vibrant colors in his art. One must wonder if this painting would have ever existed without the exposure of Monet, Gauguin, And Bernard. Are we as a society neglecting our own "Van Gogh"s" because we did not allow art to be accessible to them because of something as simple as admission fees? Is it possible that we are missing out on some of the greatest art the world has to offer? By putting unaffordable admission prices on art museums, You are shutting down the chance for countless people from the lower class to become what they are meant to be. Source: www. Artble. Com Harm 3: Limiting access to art education will result in lower SAT scores and less academic achievement. Support: Studies have found that exposure to art is directly correlated to positive child development, And higher SAT verbal and math scores. According to Catterall"s findings, Participation in art activities is an unusual, Yet accurate predictor of academic achievement and community involvement. Students with lower economic standing that gained art experience reaped the benefits of better grades, Employment, And even college attendance. If these students were just able to gain some exposure to art, The success rates in academic success, SAT scores, And employment will skyrocket. Source: thehill. Com Observation 3: Plan Mandates: The US will pass a law saying all art museums will have free admission Agency: The government Funding: Studies have shown that funding art museums through donations has proved a good, Reliable source of income. For example, The California Museum of Art received a total of 321 large donations totalling millions and millions of dollars. From this example, It is indubitably clear that because of the generosity of people, Art museums will have more than enough money to support themselves. After all, Because of the fact that admission fees only account for an average of between 2 and 4 percent of the museum"s overall income, Raising enough money through donations to cover that will not be an issue at all. Enforcement: Supreme Court Observation 4: Advantages Advantage 1: Art Museum attendance will skyrocket Support: If art museum admission is free, The public will be encouraged to attend them. No one, Especially members from the lower class, Will have to worry about finance issues, And they would get the exposure to art education that they need. Everyone in our society should have an equal opportunity to have art education, And achieve academic excellence, Even if they aren"t the richest. Source: www. Citylab. Com Advantage 2: No special talents will be missed Support: By granting everyone free access to art museums, You are ensuring that everyone, Rich or poor, Has an equal opportunity to be properly educated in terms of art. If someone, Especially from the lower class, Has the special talent of creativity, Art museums are the perfect way to make sure that it is discovered. Inspiration in art is all it takes for someone to uncover that special talent. Advantage 3: Success rates on the SAT and academic achievement will go up Support: Because many schools do not offer art as a class, Art museums are the perfect way to ensure that all students receive the proper art education they need to succeed academically. Exposure to art increases SAT scores, Improves community involvement, And greatly improves motivation to learn. Our society would be a completely different place if everyone had proper art education. Something as simple as art museum admission fees is the only thing keeping this dream from becoming a reality. Conclusion: In conclusion, I am for the resolution, All art museums should have free admission.