args

Video Games are an art form.

This is an intresting debate, and I like your point of view, so here we go. A good movie, book, or picture are all art forms. Created by a person of group, these things can represent ideals, beliefs, ways of thinking, and choice. Art is human. From cave paintings to the Mona Lisa, art has impacted humanity in all sorts of ways. Video games can fulfill these same things, so why is it that video games are not considered an art form? Well, it comes down to a few things. A: Video Games have Goals Whether you are playing the campaign on Halo: Reach or fighting other players on Modern Warfare, video games have goals. Achieve this goal, run to this checkpoint, capture this flag, defeat your opponent. This, in essence, is how a video game is played: the accomplishment of these goals. Without these goals, a video game is nothing, an area to walk around. Do other art forms have a goal? See who can watch the movie the fastest, pay the most attention to the ballet, count how many people are in this picture? No, that is not what art is. Art is meant to be interpreted to the viewer or listener, and let that person decide how to feel based off that art form. One must achieve the goals of a video game, and thus cannot interpret the game for themselves. B: Deliberation Consider the art forms today. Literature, music, dancing, paintings, etc. These things have many things in common, but one aspect is usually overlooked: they have to be created deliberatly. Music has been around since man started eating beans, paintings since the blood of an animal accidently splashed on a wall, dance since a swarm of bees started to sting a man trying to steal honey, and and lierature as man took the sounds he heard and tried to record them so others could 'hear' it. Video games cannot happen randomly as these other art forms can. Instead, it takes years of work from a group of people to accomplish their goal of creating something entertaining. C: Creators of Art Excluding video games, all of the art forms listed in our debate have one thing in common: they were created by either a single person or a single group and one is left to interpret the art. Video games are not so. One can change the surroundings of a video game, interact with others, and affect a storyline. All other forms of art are created and then left alone for its enjoyers to interpret for themselves. By allowing the gamers to affect how the video game is played, it basically defeats the purpose of the creators creating an art form. As you can see, video games may be considered an art with music, storylines, and graphics. To anyone who doesn't think about it, it could be considered an art form. Unfortunatly for myself, as a lover of video games, and the video-gaming community, it isn't an art form. The fact that one can interact with it does not make it an art, in fact it could keep it from being an art. By making the gamers conform to a set way of interpreting the game, i.e. achieveing goals and getting passed levels, it takes away the ability of the gamer to interpret the game for themselves. And, if it weren't for the creators deliberating creating the game, there would be no game, for nature does not allow video games to be created randomly. So thus, because of all the reason stated, video games are not an art form and I urge the voters to vote Con.

Brewing is an art form

Congratulations on your 100th debate. I'm willing to make it worthwhile! Brewing is not an art. "art noun (Concise Encyclopedia) A visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation. The various visual arts exist within a continuum that ranges from purely aesthetic purposes at one end to purely utilitarian purposes at the other. This should by no means be taken as a rigid scheme, however, particularly in cultures in which everyday objects are painstakingly constructed and imbued with meaning. Particularly in the 20th century, debates arose over the definition of art. Figures such as Dada artist Marcel Duchamp implied that it is enough for an artist to deem something “art” and put it in a publicly accepted venue. Such intellectual experimentation continued throughout the 20th century in movements such as conceptual art and Minimalism. By the turn of the 21st century, a variety of new media (e.g., video art) further challenged traditional definitions of art." [1] 1. Art is hard to define, but one essential part of it can be found in the attempt at a definition above: the intent to create art. Art cannot be created accidentally, and not as a by-product. Beer is produced in order to intoxicate people and make money. Not as an expression of art or emotion. Skill is required, yes. Care is required, for else the product will not sell. Some brewers love their job and activity. But none of that creates art. 2. Art is not detrimental to society Brewing creates alcohol. Alcohol is a neurotoxin that "increases the fluidity of the neuronal membrane by changing the ratio of unsaturated to saturated fats in favour of the latter; in addition, the concentration of cholesterol is increased. These changes in lipid composition appear to be associated with the development of behavioural tolerance to the drug. The resultant change in membrane structure affects transport processes across the cell surface involving calcium and other electrolytes and the active transport of neurotransmitters such as the biogenic amines and GABA; there is evidence that neurotransmitter receptor function is also impaired as a consequence of the alteration in the membrane micro-environment brought about by chronic ethanol exposure. Such effects suggest that alterations in cellular function, and ultimately behaviour, are primarily the result of the changes in nerve membrane structure and function." [2] People under the influence of beer are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, violence and other socially detrimental activities. I say that any activity producing beer can not be called an art form because of the ill effects of its mass product poison threatening the well-being of our society. Art furthers society: "Try to imagine society without the humanising influence of the arts, and you will have to strip out most of what is pleasurable in life, as well as much that is educationally critical and socially essential." [3] 3. Brewing is not the expression of an individual's qualities Through art, the artist expresses themselves. The process of brewing allows for little freedom of expression, as taking a lot of creative freedom will simply result in the beer to not marketable. If brewing were a form of art, there would be "young wilds" who would brew beer that would be impossible to drink, just to spite all those drunkards who dare swallow the precious beverage by the gallon without ever acknowledging its qualities, but rather for its alcohol content and cheap price. That does not happen. All beer is modelled to appeal to as many buyers as possible, leaving the brewer mainly out of the picture once the recipe is set. So the brewer has no qualities of an artist, hence brewing is not a form of art. If it were, everything that takes care would be an art, and this debate would be pointless. I'm looking forward to your reply. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.artscouncil.org.uk...

Modern Art

I am not sure what point PRO is trying to get across here. Art is for the viewer, not the artist. No matter how much praise the artist gives the piece, the final judge shall be the people. I think that PRO should consider other's opinions when speaking in such matter, as to say that the majority of people cannot even attempt to see how beautiful modern abstract art is. I think that PRO should restate his point in his topic and also learn to accept other's opinions.

Video Games are a form of art.

1) If we are to take the resolution, instead of taking it in its literal sense to mean that video games have qualities such that they can, by definition, be categorised as "Art" and instead interpret the resolution (incorrectly grammatically) as meaning something like "generally, video games can be classified as Art" then fine - however, it is clear at that point that Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. He needs to show, not only that some video games can be classified as Art, but that a majority of video games can be classified as Art. Pro has brought forth no argument or evidence thus far to even attempt to fulfil such a burden of proof - either the former or the latter. In addition, he has yet to provide a definition of Art such that we can properly evaluate this question; my working definition derived from the first round will have to do apparently. For example, if the resolution were "Plastic Cups are a form of art" then, if we interpret the resolution as Pro does, he would have to provide evidence that a majority (or "in general") of cups are works of art. Pointing out exceptions such as novelty cups shaped like lion's heads will not do. It seems almost trivial to point out that an imagined conversation with someone from the past does not count as evidence - in any case, the resolution is that they *are* a work of Art, so even if they were considered beautiful in the past Pro has to show that they are a work of Art now, in the present tense. 2) If beauty is entirely subjective, then we have no real way of determining whether Video Games do fall into the definition of Art and thus it is impossible for Pro to prove the resolution. Things that are "in the eye of the beholder" cannot, by definition, be proven in a debate since they are not truth apt statements. If art is subjective, then I can simply say "Well, I don't think video games ARE art" and I will be just as right as you.