The Instigator
madamep85
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Jokerdude
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2008 Category: Arts
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,525 times Debate No: 2193
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

madamep85

Pro

Art, much like Christianity is something that a person believes in versus something that is a proven fact. Its relative to an individual and solely based on ones faith and preference. I do not believe in art.
Jokerdude

Con

I concede that yes art is based on perception but everyone believes in art in on form or another.

Art can be defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing"
- Websters Dictionary

Everyone finds something beautiful or appealing so it exists if only in a persons mind. To say that art is non existent is ignorant.
Debate Round No. 1
madamep85

Pro

i think your explanation says it best "art CAN be defined as"

another definition as provided by Oxford English dictionary is
art-"the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture."

First, the fact that there are multiple definitions for this one word "art" that do not necessarily correlate with each other means that its relative to the person defining it. As such it cannot have a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art.

Second, your definition assumes that everyone has found something beautiful. If one person in their existence has never found something beautiful, then art doesn't exist.

Third, taking your definition, someone can believe something aesthetically pleasing and someone else can believe it is hideous, thus making it based on a personal opinion. much like a religion, people believe in it based on nothing but a feeling and a personal belief, no actual definitive evidence.

your other point


i never said art was non existent. i said art was an unproven concept and based on belief. an you hit the nail on the head by saying "it exists if only in a persons mind". i also said i didn't believe in it.
Jokerdude

Con

Lets first examine your definition "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture."

Breaking it down "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium" This is exactly what my definition is saying that something worth seeing and brings you happiness the other portion of your definition was showing examples but wasn't absolute as to what can be defined as art.

Also you said "a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art"
Thats what I am saying there are not any standards to art but it ties in with point two where everyone has known happiness so everyone knows art. But all definitions meet this basic standard for art, that everything is art.

For the second point its not an assumption, if not now at some point you were happy you found something wonderful that you couldn't take your eyes off. Whether 10 or 20 years ago.

On the third point its all personal opinion but everyone knows art, you might think somethings hideous but I might say other wise and vice versa. But yes there are all different opinions but they are all on the same basic standard listed above.

For this final point art is existent if only in our minds it still exists. Its proven anytime you see something and you think wow thats cool. To deny that it has never happened would be like saying the sky isn't blue
Debate Round No. 2
madamep85

Pro

ok lets address your first argument:



Your definition is art is based on the concept of an individuals expression being based on what is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. my definition is a creative skill put forth in a way that can be seen. one doesn't have anything to do with another.

1. someone can express a creative skill such as painting based on my definition, but if its not aesthetically pleasing, then its not art based on your definition. in addition, if something is found to be beautiful by people, i.e. a person expressing himself by throwing paint on the floor, but there was no skill involved then it doesn't meet my definition. still proving that art has no set definition and can only exist to the person defining it, if someone doesn't define art then they don't believe in it and it is an unproven concept.

2. happiness is never brought up in either definition, that's just something that you took it mean("this picture on the wall that is someone's expression of life makes me happy, therefore this picture must be art"). Even if i grant you that your interpretation is ok, it still proves my argument which is that art is based on belief. it is a unproven concept that people choose to accept, like religion, but is not based on anything factual, and i don't believe in it. personally im happy when im well rested, does that mean rest is art?

your next argument,

1. your running away with this "everything is art" and "happiness is art" idea. i already address this in my 2nd point of my last argument. but to add to it, you're assuming that everyone has known happiness. that is not a proven fact. even if it was, many people would argue that happiness doesn't equate to art, like to 2 people that defined the word for us. neither use the idea that happiness is a factor in determining what art is.

2. further, a lot of people that would meet your original definition of art, ie, someone that painted a beautiful painting, may not be happy. lots of people express themselves for example by painting aesthetically pleasing pictures because they are depressed or miserable. some can only do it when they are in that state.

your last arguement


1. i think your missing my point about art. I'm saying that art exists about as must as God, Allah, or Buddha do. all are concepts that people have chosen to except as their reality despite the inability to provide proof that they exist. art has been accepted by millions of people all with their own opinion of what is and no way to tell them they are wrong. i can think a painting is a really cool painting or a dancer is very talented but that doesn't mean the picture or the dance is art. again my argument still holds true that it is an unproven concept. it is based on a persons personal opinion and if someone doesn't accept any of the definitions and chooses not to define it then they don't believe in art. that means art is not their reality.

2. and 2nd the sky isn't actually blue. its every color in a prism but the gas molecules that exist in our atmosphere only absorb blue light and scatter it in many directions. so i guess that means that im valid in denying that art is reality huh?

your argument is basically about art being happiness and beauty and anyone
knowing happiness knows art. then you said everyone knows happiness so that means art exists.

my point, which i think you've failed to address, is that thats your opinion and you're not wrong for it. nor are the people that created either of the definitions that we used in this debate. thats why im right that art is an unproven concept. anyone can call anything art and be right by their definition murder, pictures, music, nature, stripping, whatever you want. or a person can not accept any of the definitions and not believe in it all.

good debate...thanks for being my opponent
Jokerdude

Con

So I guess ill address your attacks in the same order

1. First off everything takes some amount of skill to accomplish. Next you have to look at is even if you don't "define" art you cant just ignore it. To say it doesn't exist is ignorant because you cant deny something that is right in front of you.

2. Happiness is something drawn from both definitions. For art is something that is created look at the interpretation i made for both definitions, everything is art if you follow any standards defining art, not just both of ours.

3. Grouping the arguments on this part, you said that following our definitions some people would see art. Thats what im saying above how everything is art, and sure saddened art is still art because it brings out raw emotion.

4. Yes it is a concept but that still is in existence its been proven time and time again, and you still havent said what we would call things that people like van gough and picaso have created are we supposed to ignore those works of art.

5. Like you said light is refracted, blue light so the sky is blue, blue light anyways.

Thank you for the debate............Vote Negative
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
madamep85JokerdudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
madamep85JokerdudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Undermining-Chaos 9 years ago
Undermining-Chaos
madamep85JokerdudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ContortedExistence 9 years ago
ContortedExistence
madamep85JokerdudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
madamep85JokerdudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03