The Instigator
joseph997
Pro (for)
The Contender
Darmas
Con (against)

Contemporary Art is becoming more perverse and repulsive than the art of previous eras.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
joseph997 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2017 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 102837
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

joseph997

Pro

In my opinion, art of the modern era is becoming far less beautiful and marvelous and instead increasingly disturbing. Much of what is considered art today is no longer something to be appraised, but instead what could be labeled downright repulsive. It seems to some that much of the contemporary art is putting up a proverbial middle finger to the traditions and standards of artists of the passed. Over the passed few decades, there has been an increase in art that includes pornographic images that are formed in the name of art. Art such as "The Virgin Mary" that utilizes cow dung and pornographic images to create a reported "masterpiece". Also, there are such pieces as "Petra" that are accepted as art, when really an image with such immature and inappropriate of a depiction should not be appraised.(Petra is an art piece of a woman urinating. The rock at the LA County museum being called art is quintessential of the downfall of the demand for standards in art. It is legitimately a 340 ton boulder that sits at a museum. Is it reprehensible? No, not really. But yet, how can such a silly element of nature be thought of as a praiseworthy piece of art. With these aforementioned examples, I ask you whom are voting, whether or not you think that contemporary art is disturbing or if it merely represents a progression of social evolution and acceptance.
Darmas

Con

While it may seem that contemporary art is becoming more perverse and repulsive (in some cases it is beyond true) it is all based on whether the audience accepts it as art. Repulsive art could be a political statement, where the artists are not afraid to make a statement. It could also be a representation of how they feel, (I'm sure we all had days where we feel icky inside or depressed or even had dark thoughts run through our minds) and these artists are able to capture that moment. It takes a lot of creativity (or maybe even not enough).
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Interesting topic.
Posted by levi_smiles 1 year ago
levi_smiles
Your conclusion presents voters with a false dichotomy: either modern art is disturbing or it represents progress. Can't it be both? Or neither? Can you establish that the two works offered particularly represent a trend over the past 20 years?

Nor do I buy the assumption that modernity offers an important cultural decline in terms of subject. The cave paintings of Lascaux depict hunting- in real life, I've see women pee and I've seen animals hunted and I think most would find the latter far more disturbing than the former. What's disturbing about urination? Why is Duquesnoy's 1618 Manneken Pis, famously depicting a kid peeing into a water fountain great art but Walldorf's Petra somehow less? Petra is certainly less humorous but it's also far more thought provoking- the authority of riot gear juxtaposed by the vulnerability of human function. Rape, murder, war have always been popular subjects in art- why does ordinary biology attract all the controversy?

The Holy Virgin Mary is painted with elephant dung, not cow, which is important as its use was a nod to the Zimbabwean portraits the artist was emulating. Before we decide that this is some indicator of cultural lassitude, let's remember that Picasso liked to paint with the contents of his daughter's diapers & yes, he also painted biblical figures. Before 20th century chemistry, many pigments were derived from the feces or urine of many animals including man. In fact, since most canvas was bleached and bleach was made from human urine, we should expect to find significant quantities of pee in most classical paintings. In short, I don't think the examples provided represent a particular trend in art, much less a decline
Posted by levi_smiles 1 year ago
levi_smiles
Your conclusion presents voters with a false dichotomy: either modern art is disturbing or it represents progress. Can't it be both? Or neither? Can you establish that the two works offered particularly represent a trend over the past 20 years?

Nor do I buy the assumption that modernity offers an important cultural decline in terms of subject. The cave paintings of Lascaux depict hunting- in real life, I've see women pee and I've seen animals hunted and I think most would find the latter far more disturbing than the former. What's disturbing about urination? Why is Duquesnoy's 1618 Manneken Pis, famously depicting a kid peeing into a water fountain great art but Walldorf's Petra somehow less? Petra is certainly less humorous but it's also far more thought provoking- the authority of riot gear juxtaposed by the vulnerability of human function. Rape, murder, war have always been popular subjects in art- why does ordinary biology attract all the controversy?

The Holy Virgin Mary is painted with elephant dung, not cow, which is important as its use was a nod to the Zimbabwean portraits the artist was emulating. Before we decide that this is some indicator of cultural lassitude, let's remember that Picasso liked to paint with the contents of his daughter's diapers & yes, he also painted biblical figures. Before 20th century chemistry, many pigments were derived from the feces or urine of many animals including man. In fact, since most canvas was bleached and bleach was made from human urine, we should expect to find significant quantities of pee in most classical paintings. In short, I don't think the examples provided represent a particular trend in art, much less a decline
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.