Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewArt 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.
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
Art is more sophisticated than that.
If artists only cared about pleasuring people, they stand no chance against the nicotine and sex industries. Of course there is nothing wrong about making art simply to be pleasing to the eye, just as there is nothing wrong with making radio-friendly pop music. But art also has to power to expand your view of life and humanity, affect you in ways that make you a larger person (no not as in fat), more complete, more intellectual. This may sound like I am differentiating between "highbrow" and "lowbrow" but it is not that. Every piece of art affects every beholder in ways that they do not comprehend. You do not have to be able to verbally articulate how a piece of art affects you and what it is doing to affect you in that way, in order for it to have affected you. Leave that to art critics. If you enter a modern museum and come out feeling a little befuddled, you have still been affected. Your perspective of life has gained something. The majority of our brain processes are unconscious. So it is not possible to fully comprehend how something has affected you. There are too many variables. But beauty is only one aspect of art, and possibly a superficial one.
Art is faulty by definition.
Art is about creativity, which means deviations from perfection, or faults. If I run the same document through a printer that works perfectly 200 times, I will get 200 identical documents. If I run the same document through a slightly faulty printer, it could produce one of millions of interesting variations. That which is faulty is also chaotic, it grinds against what we instinctively know should be, it makes us want to fix it. Art inherently contains these qualities which are not beautiful.
Art needs beauty
A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists
Censoring Art Is Dangerous
What side prop fails to acknowledge is that people are generally reasonable, which is why governments empower people to make choices that could harm them, because we expect every adult to be able to make informed decisions, and most of the time we are proven correct, which is why most people are not criminals. The harm that propositions logic has is that they do not realize that depending on the person listening to the song, we could have completely different interpretations of what the song means. This is because art is intensely personal; the emotions that art evokes are completely subjective, so one cannot simply assume that once someone hears a misogynistic song, they will be compelled to oppress women. For example, a lot of feminists maligned A Clockwork Orange for being exploitative to women because it depicted a lot of women being raped, but most people appreciated it as a warning against a society that was depriving people of their humanity (1), metaphorically turning them into cogs in a clock. This movie won four Oscar nominations, showing that gratuitous violence can be acceptable in society, and that we are capable of reading between the lines. So the question becomes: how exactly will proposition determine which songs are worthless and which are not? That is why censoring this music and any form of art is never a good idea. We can never really know the value of a work of art to different individuals, so it would be wrong to ban it unless we can determine a real harm, but as we have proven, the only harm that has been demonstrated by proposition is completely assertive. Music audiences have repeatedly proven that they do not take lyrics literally as the popularity of songs like Blowin’ In The Wind by Bob Dylan would suggest, or Yellow Submarine(2) by the Beatles. (1)http://www.mouthshut.com/review/A_Clockwork_Orange_-_Anthony_Burgess-55646-1.html (2)http://www.lyricinterpretations.com/Beatles/Yellow-Submarine/2
Problem, there shouldn't be standard becuase everything is art
Everything we see/hear/feel/create, well, 'everything' is art where God or the clock-worked universe is the artist. All skills are art All creation/destruction (indocti discant) is art. Cave paintings were/are art. Good/bad writing is art. To claim that something is not art because it does not fit some pompous criteria/standard is an elitist realization of Marx's Bourgeoisie, who standardize art(where/when there are no 'real' substantial definitions of beauty/art) to keep themselves rich and the proletariat poor. Posthumously commercially exploiting (poor proletariat)artists like Vincent Van Gogh; to keep themselves rich.
Bullfighting is a cultural art form, not a sport
Ernest Hemingway said about bullfighting that it is "a decadent art in every way [...] if it were permanent it could be one of the major arts."[
Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art
Sometimes artists go too far in a bid to get their message across. Simply grabbing the headlines with shock tactics does not constitute Simply grabbing the headlines with shock tactics does not constitute art of the sort that should be receiving either public support or attention. It is important to recognise that public displays and funding of art are limited commodities, so every time one piece is chosen for an exhibition, or an artist is given money, this comes at the cost of other possible pieces of art. It is surely better to support those artists who have chosen to express their ideas and messages in a way that does not rely on simple attention-grabbing horror: it is surely more artistically meritorious to create a work that conveys its message in a way that rewards close attention and careful study, with layers of meaning and technique.
A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists
[[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-saturday-essay-our-modern-age-requires-a-new-definition-of-beauty-1073410.html]] Beauty can be defined as anything with symmetry/order that appeases the mind. Therefore, according to that definition/standard: beauty can be in ordinary things. However,the monetary value of that 'pulchritude' really measures 'how' beautiful and rare/unique/original it is. Art is therefore, standardized with 'price tags' : a masterpiece: a carefully crafted delight to the senses; can hold up a trillion dollar bid , where as a common rose bouquet can not. >>>>> So you agree that Art needs beauty but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a yes side argument :P
Art is faulty by definition.
Again, you are setting a standard: Art 'has to be' aberration/erroneous/vagabond/exotic/provocative/different/unique/reflective-of-human-error. That claims agrees with the proposition's point of view that 'anything & everything' should not be called 'ART'.
Art needs beauty
Art needs beauty?
Art needs beauty
Art has many purposes
Art needs beauty
Art is faulty by definition.
Art needs beauty
Art is more sophisticated than that.
Art needs beauty
Problem, there shouldn't be standard becuase everything is art
A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists
If our standard for art involves official certificates and price tags, how do we avoid the corruption that comes together with money and official business affecting whether the art is judged fairly? Such a process can hinder art as much as it can support it. Secondly, Beauty is a subjective principle. Order is just as ugly to some as Chaos us to others. The mystifying aspect of beauty is that it cannot be defined as anything except that which appeases the mind. If all art were predictably beautiful, would beauty continue to be the most sought after experience in art/life?
Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art
Who determines whether something is too disgusting? It is also hard to separate a piece of work’s artistic merit from its impact. It is perfectly possible for a work of art to display great technical competence, and yet fail to have an emotional impact on its audience, and so as a consequence it seems most sensible to allow, display and fund as wide a display of art as possible. Limiting the forms of art that we display or give funding to those considered ‘artistically meritorious’ will result in the loss of innovation in the art world: if we only encourage those pieces that are ‘good’ under present-day metrics, we lose those pieces of art that, though considered controversial, or ‘not art’ now, may in the future be considered masterpieces (e.g. Picasso’s Guernica).
CMV: Most attempts to dismiss a medium or work of art as "unartistic" only serve to validate it further, since it's challenging the detractor's expectations of what art is, ergo it is art
I think that a piece absolutely *can* be art by being unartistic or anti-art. But I think that is a function of the artist's intent, not of the detraction itself. For example, Duchamp's Fountain is art *because* it's a criticism of what could be displayed in art installations at the time and was clearly "not artistic", but it wasn't art *because* people said it wasn't artistic. To put it another way, if I said "this pair of earplugs on my desk is not art", I have not given the earplugs the essence of "art" because they've made me evaluate what I do and don't consider art. They're still just earplugs. Maybe earplugs could be art, if I put them in a display symbolizing my life, or if I arranged them just-so and gave them a title, or if I took a nice picture of them, or even just put a packet of earplugs on an empty display in a museum and waited to see if the janitor would clean them up. But all of those are artistic because I did something that communicated an intent to create a message; even if people disagree that they're art, I've still tried to say something. But simply saying something isn't art doesn't mean it is, if there really was no artistic intent whatsoever to begin with.
Art is more sophisticated than that.
But these advertisement are beautiful in some way... beautiful to some people at least. No not everyone finds every piece of art beautiful, but someone does. Lets look at a few examples: War Propaganda Posters from WWII: A Swastika would look very beautiful and appealing to Hitler and lead Nazis because it means so much more to them, but America would see it as ugly. Beauty to some, ugly to others. Cigarette Ad: Beautiful to addicts, ugly to opposers Now lets switch the scene and looks at music. Hardcore heavy death metal is beautiful to some, while country is to others. Theres no right and wrong in the aspects of beauty, but the end result it a type of beauty to someone
Debate.org
Debatepedia