The Instigator
VU
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LogicalLunatic
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Can anyone and everyone be an artist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
LogicalLunatic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 890 times Debate No: 60846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

VU

Con

Some believe that only a precious few are granted artistic vision and ability. Others would argue that each and every individual is an artist, and may even go so far as to say that everything is art.
True? Perhaps.
False? Perhaps.
Debatable? Absolutely.
LogicalLunatic

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
VU

Con

There are two things that make an artist: skill and concept. Many people, however, only possess one or the other (i.e., they have many superb and imaginative ideas, but lack the ability to actualize them; or they have mastered a certain skill, such as painting or printing, but produce mundane and uninventive works due to their lack of imagination and creativity.)

Is an individual who possesses only one skill or the other nevertheless an artist?
LogicalLunatic

Pro

Definition of Artist:
A person who produces a work of art.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Definition of Art:
A thing which was designed to be beautiful or thought-provoking
http://www.bing.com...
And as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
By this logic, if a baby stacked a blue block on top of a red block just for the way it looked, then to that baby it would be art, thus matching the criteria of art.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
VU

Con

In response to the example about the baby, placing one block on top of another requires neither skill nor imagination - merely the ability to make physical movements. Furthermore, art is an intentional expression of whatever one chooses to express; but babies do not have the ability to consciously execute a creative concept that he or she has developed because their brains have not yet reached that level of maturity.

However, it is indeed true that art can be "a thing which was designed to be beautiful or thought-provoking" and that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but art is not always meant to be beautiful. In fact, art is not required to be aesthetically pleasing in any way - though obviously an artist is free to make his or her art beautiful if they please.
LogicalLunatic

Pro

My opponent is wrong; the baby stacks one block on top of the other to create what is in its mind a work of art, an accomplishment of putting one block on top of the other because it is a pleasing sight to the baby to see it's work put to the fruition of art. There is no intrinsic purpose for stacking one block on top of another; it just looks good to that baby.
It's not merely a baby making a movement; if you knock over the blocks then the baby may grow upset (and throw a fit).

Vote for Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Stop spamming!
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
It depends on which side of the brain you use.

Considering every country's society craps out more psychopaths (left side of the brain) more than personalities (right side of brain), I'd say that there's a reason why businesses are everywhere, while very few pictures exist.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
VULogicalLunaticTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."....pretty clear win for PRO.
Vote Placed by LDPOFODebATeR0328 2 years ago
LDPOFODebATeR0328
VULogicalLunaticTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: LL was able to prove how everyone can be artists.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
VULogicalLunaticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Too simple of an argument - All Pro needed to say was that "art is in the eye of the beholder" and he would have one, he didn't even need to say anything other than that.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
VULogicalLunaticTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: BY pure definitions in a weak (no offense) debate, Pro wins.