args

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