Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewprogramming is art
If computer programming is to become an important part of computer research and development, a transition of programming from an art to a disciplined science must be effected.
programming is art
because apparently programming is neither a science and nor an engineering. Then what is it? It has to be an It has to be an art.
art is technically useful
"We are talking about the typical form of arts, which is painting or sculpturing." If you had a problem with the definitions I provided you should have said so in the second round of the debate, before I provided my argument. "Yes but geometry, symmetry, construction etc are now studied in Math. Would they qualify as If you had a problem with the definitions I provided you should have said so in the second round of the debate, before I provided my argument. "Yes but geometry, symmetry, construction etc are now studied in Math. Would they qualify as art. Also building a house would require usage of all 3 skills as well." Of course they are studied in math NOW, but art is the base of them. Just because it is studied in math, does not mean it is an art. "Art doesn't have a practical use, it just beautifies things." The definition of useful states - able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways. This means that it does not HAVE to have a practical use, it can also just be used in multiple ways. We are not arguing if art is practical, only if it is useful. One such use is beautifying things, another could possibly be to bring out positive emotion in the viewer. Therefore, art is technically useful. The link talks about philosophies, but they can be expressed through writings. But what can be expressed through writings? If you're talking about philosophies than it's entirely irrelevant, the same if you are talking about emotion. "Emotion practically doesn't have a use unless its good" Once again, the definition of useful does not state that it has to be practical, it can also be used in many different ways. "and even then emotions expressed through art won't impact the watcher." Untrue, many people are affected emotionally by art, whether it be paintings, music, sculptures, etc. Just because you personally aren't affected, doesn't mean others are. Yet I don't see why paintings are still sold at ridiculous prices. They obviously see a use in them, whether it be to make a room look more pleasing, brings out a positive emotion in them, or even just to show off their wealth. These are all uses of a painting, while they may be petty to you, they are still uses, therefore art can be useful.
Magic is an art.
Magic is an art and should be treated as such. I will explain myself futher when someone accepts this debate.
Video Games Are An Art Form
Closing: I have given ample evidence to support my claim that video games art indeed art. I feel that my contender has not given any evidence suggest that it is not art, and therefore I believe I have won this debate. It seems to me that my opponent might have changed his mind with the statement, "I must say you do make a point that video games are art." So that should be even more reasoning behind my claim to victory.
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.
Photography is an art form
I would like to thank con for starting this debate. I do believe that photography is an art form, and am interested in hearing the case against this. That said, since it was said that the "definitions are open to discussion and change", I would prefer to use dictionary definitions. I hope this doesn't turn into an argument over semantics. To be thorough, I'll lay down a few definitions I believe are relevant. All definitions pulled from " http://www.merriam-webster.com... " ~~~~ Photography (noun) 1: The art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip) ~~~~ Art form (noun) 1: a) form or medium of expression recognized as fine art 2: a) an unconventional form or medium in which impulses regarded as artistic may be expressed b) an undertaking or activity enhanced by a high level of skill or refinement ~~~~~ Fine Art (noun) 2: an activity requiring a fine skill ~~~~~ Fine (adj) 4: Superior in kind, quality, or appearance : excellent ~~~~ All definitions pulled from " http://www.merriam-webster.com... " ~~~~ Photography (noun) 1: The art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip) ~~~~ Art form (noun) 1: a) form or medium of expression recognized as fine art 2: a) an unconventional form or medium in which impulses regarded as artistic may be expressed b) an undertaking or activity enhanced by a high level of skill or refinement ~~~~~ Fine Art (noun) 2: an activity requiring a fine skill ~~~~~ Fine (adj) 4: Superior in kind, quality, or appearance : excellent ~~~~ Art (noun) 1: Skill acquired by experience, study, or observation 2: a branch of learning 3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill 4: a) the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic arts
art is technically useful
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. The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance. Useful - able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways. "The world could very much survive without the main form of arts, which is painting or sculpturing." While it may be able to survive without these types of arts, it does not mean they are not useful. Also, we are not only talking about painting and sculpting, art encompasses many forms, such as poetry, dancing, music, and also the traditionally thought of painting and sculpting. While it may reduce the beauty of some objects and give a dull background, it is not a necessary practice. Once again, the word useful does not imply necessary, it implies being of use to someone or some thing. Personally, I know people who's lives have been impacted by music and poetry, and have made them feel better when they were feeling down. This is one such use of Personally, I know people who's lives have been impacted by music and poetry, and have made them feel better when they were feeling down. This is one such use of art. All I need to do is provide one other example of how art can be useful to win the debate. Taken from an intelligent individual, [1] "Art most certainly does have practical applications in the sense of real world physical application. It was poets and writers who throughout history captured the essences of nature and relationships which lead to our growing understanding of the human condition. It was painters and sculptors who allowed us greater understanding of geometry, symmetry, and construction. And this is only the very abridged list of what art contributes to practicality." Art has helped us understand many things in the world around us, and has helped shaped our society as a whole. As you can see, art CAN be useful. http://onlinephilosophyclub.com...
Video Games Are Art
Listen here Art is defined by Merriam Webster as "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation" Someone that makes video games has a study for coding, computers, and ideas. They observe their surroundings by using real life scenarios to display messages and characters. The coder or developer had a purpose in putting characters in the game, while artists have a purpose in putting objects or people in their painting. Obviously, they observed the surroundings and have a general idea of idea of life. They used observation to add key scenes in the plot. They used observation to fix bugs, add new characters, look at critiques, and add new game modes, etc. An argument against this would be invalid because they are using observation to code.. and code is a skill which leads to skill Skill is known as being good at a certain thing that maybe other are not... Coding takes a skill in computers and in coding to program. They need a skill to fix bugs and add new patches to improve a game, which is harder than making a painting because everyone will keep wanting and if they don't deliver, it can lead to a bad rep and people not wanting to buy a game. Art is the opposite, you can make art people do not like and they cannot do anything as the piece is set and stone. Artists tend not to listen, for example Michelangelo was told not sculpt the privates in David statue. he did it anyways because he didn't care You can not pick up a coding manual in one day, and make a hit game. You need experience. Art and video games are the same way. Need experience in having art design, need experience for coding In conclusion...the definition I got from Merriam Webster is what art is defined as and the best definition. I answered the definition and proved my point in all. Video Games and classic art are the same thing. Video games meet all the requirements from art.
Video games are art
But, as you said "it is possible", There is nothing to stop anyone to appreciate the video games beauty as art. The design gives the form of the game, but the art style gives it a personality, like Cup Head, it's a platform game game, but it looks like a 1930's cartoon. Zelda Breath Of The Wild, it's an open world but with a cartoon style. Resident Evil 7, it's an horror game and it's realistic, with some graphic and sound elements to give the player the sense of constant danger (but RE7 at the beginning Capcom does great, but then it's predictable and eliminates that sense of danger, more like action, but predictable). And there are more art styles than these I mentioned earlier. Just to show you some games that can be considered art: Good to debate with you.
art is technically useful
No, I think art is not useful as beauty is not instrumental. Pro has to prove that art is useful and is a necessary practice.
Art Challenge (1/2)
I accept your art challenge and look forward to it as it's my first. I have no art education, no art training, no notable talent, and now 8 months experience. Before this year, I was a real estate broker. Be afraid, be very afraid. Do I wish you luck or is it like drama where I should encourage you to "break a thumb?" What's the proper etiquette here?
art is technically useful
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. We are talking about the typical form of arts, which is painting or sculpturing. ' It was painters and sculptors who allowed us greater understanding of geometry, symmetry, and construction.' Yes but geometry, symmetry, construction etc are now studied in Math. Would they qualify as art. Also building a house would require usage of all 3 skills as well. Art doesn't have a practical use, it just beautifies things. The link talks about philosophies, but they can be expressed through writings. Emotion practically doesn't have a use unless its good, and even then emotions expressed through art won't impact the watcher. Yet I don't see why paintings are still sold at ridiculous prices.
Photography is an art form
Hello, debaters. The resolution is as follows: "Photography is an art form." By "photography," I mean "the process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces," and by "art form," I mean "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." As is customary in any philosophical debate, the definitions of these terms are not fixed. They are open to discussion and change. Pro's position must prove that photography fulfills the necessary and sufficient conditions of something being a form of art. Con's position must prove that photography does not meet these requirements and is something else besides art. For the sake of fairness, I would prefer the Contender merely accept the debate and that we begin making arguments in Round Two. Let's have a civil and productive argument.
Trolling is a form of art.
Trollers be trolling. Also, I question the definitions of "trolling" and "art." Trolling is deliberately hiding under bridges to scare passers-by and not allow them passage over the bridge unless they answer your three riddles. Also, art is a man's name, short for Arthur or Artholomew, or even Art. I look forward to Pro's opening argument. :D
Video Games are an art form.
My only argument to post in particular is that art forms are specifically fine art, which video games are not classified as.
art is needed in todays society
why is it? its because society has YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT "our society fast-paced daily lives have made the arts obsolete - WE have forgotten to observe such little things like the arts and devalued it. WE take it for granted and forgotten to appreciate it." I SAID You use "we" implying ALL of us have forgotten art. Which i do not believe. THEN YOU SAID "first off, i never said that "we" should ALL create art" Your argument is that we need to appreciate it, we have forgotten it. is that what you mean by "we take it for granted and forgotten to appreciate it." yes? I am saying that we don't need to appreciate it. We have lives, they are filled with work, or our favorite activities. Throughout life we have been introduced to art, but like you said people don't appreciate it. I see it as you are a used car salesman. You've shown the car, they said no. They want another car and they buy it, live happily ever after. Until you show up at their door saying you should have bought the other car. People don't appreciate it, that the fact, as you stated. It is their choice, its not like they have been hiden from it their whole live and you are enlighting them.They see art. They don't care. "I dont need any evidence to prove my argument." I asked for evidence that lately there is a sudden decline in Arts, and the appreciation of it. If people have never cared, there is a reason. "forgotten to simply stop for a few moments and observe - appreciate. whether it is the appreciation of nature, drawings, sculptures, the people themselves, it is all art." First of all we are here debating if ART IS NEEDED IN TODAYS SOCIETY. Not if we should appreciate it. The answer is NO art is not needed in todays society. :- )
Graffiti can be art.
I had the feeling you wouldn't accept the change. I did agree to the debate and it doesn't change my arguments. Re-Rebuttal: Graffiti definition My definition for graffiti came from Merriam-Webster and, since my opponent used this same dictionary to define vandalism, I would believe my opponent's arguments against my definition being "false" are unjust. Since my opponent didn't provide a source for his/her definition I feel that it should be disregarded and not only should my definition be set as the definition for this debate, but all my opponent's arguments used with the other definition should be considered opinion and disregarded. Rebuttal 1: "The obvious answer as always. And as always, completly false. Graffiti is also a form of art, drawing letters into a specific shape in order to make it more appealing. Because of such, if someone were to draw graffiti on a piece of paper, not only is it art, but legal." I have no idea what my opponent is saying in the first two sentences. However, for the rest of the statement, according to the definition of graffiti, it must be on a public surface to be considered graffiti. a piece of paper is not a public surface and therefore a drawing on a piece of paper is not, by definition, graffiti. Rebuttal 2: "Art is vague" This first paragraph has no basis behind it and should be considered solely an attempt by my opponent to increase the broadness of this debate more in his/her favor. Since there is a definition, this debate should follow by this definition. My opponent does not have the right to change the resolution of the debate by trying to claim that art can't be defined. If my opponent wanted to use his/her personal made up definitions then they should have been stated in his/her opening statement. According to the definition of art, "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." The significance of graffiti comes from the cost to the tax payers. San Francisco spends $20 million dollars a year on graffiti removal.(1) This causes the city to have to tax its innocent residents for crimes they haven't committed and to remove drawings and writings that they don't want. It also lowers housing values in the neighborhoods. Therefore any significance from the drawing has to be greater than the significance of it simply being vandalism needing to be removed. That picture provided is nice. However, my opponent has not proven that this picture is "graffiti". I went to the site provided and it doesn't mention it being unauthorized. This could be an authorized mural. The following website is a building in the Mission District of San Francisco that is a mural, not graffiti. These types of works can be found all over the bay area and are considered art. http://foundsf.org... However, Costing innocent residents $20 million dollars a year, plus the loss of value of their property, is not appealing, beautiful, productive, or any of the other parts of the definition of art. That $20 million a year, is just the city of San Francisco. That doesn't count the costs in Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, or any other cities just in the bay area or throughout the country. Rebuttal 3: "Graffiti is different from vandalism." "Whereas vandalism would be: "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" [2]" I accept this definition for vandalism because it was reliably sourced. This definition of vandalism is almost the exact same as graffiti. Because graffiti is unauthorized drawings, it is therefore malicious destruction of public property. Therefore, my opponent's contention is false because according to the definitions, graffiti is always vandalism even though vandalism might not always be graffiti. "Though graffit can be used as vandalism, it isn't always. It is used to make posters, to draw for art class, to have fun with. Because of such, it can be art. Therefore I have already upheld my side of the resolution "graffiti can be art"." Once again, since this does not fit the definition of graffiti, this should be disregarded. Drawing on a poster for an art class is not an unauthorized drawing on public property. Conclusion: It is unreasonable for me to explain every piece of graffiti ever made. Since it is more reasonable for my opponent to simply show one piece of graffiti that could be art to disprove me, the burden of proof falls on my opponent. Because my opponent did not provide a single example of a piece of art that actually fit the definition of graffiti, my opponent has failed to prove that "graffiti can be art". I have proven that graffiti cannot be art, but is rather a selfish act of vandalism that will only have negative results on the community. It forces the community to clean up after others rather than spending the money on community centers, or other services that could improve the lives of its residents. I personally offer a math and science tutoring service for low income students here in Oakland and all expenses come from my pocket because the city is too busy cleaning up after these vandals. However, if they weren't spending that money, I could possibly do group sessions at the local community center and not have to pay for it all myself. (1) http://www.sfdpw.org... (2) http://foundsf.org...
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'.
free admission to art museums
Have you ever heard of TANSTAAFL? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In order for art museums to be free, You would need to give a way that There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In order for art museums to be free, You would need to give a way that In order for art museums to be free, You would need to give a way that art museums would be funded.
