The Instigator
kasig005
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Does Banksy's art deserve artistic merit or is it vandalism?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 91668
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

kasig005

Con

So does Banksy s art need praise or not meaning should we look up to the illegal 'graffiti' that the 'famous' artistic who has no profile or what so ever be looked up as a person we should support
Danielle

Pro

It's clear the resolution is not to be taken literally, since the resolution does not actually assert a positive or negative statement. Instead my opponent's Round 1 articulates his position in this debate: he doesn't believe that Banksy's works should be revered as art with any merit. He claims that it's vandalism; that Banksy has "no profile whatsoever" and his illegal works should not be supported.

I will be arguing that Banksy's work deserves artistic merit.

First off, it's worth noting that Banksy is not just a graffiti artist. In fact he is also a well known painter, activist, filmmaker and all-purpose provocateur. He was added to the list of 2010's 100 Most Influential People, which not only propelled him to fame but put him in the same company as high profile individuals like Barack Obama and Steve Jobs [1]. Indeed the fact that my opponent knows who Banksy is (and expects the audience to without description) proves that Banksy does have somewhat of a celebrity profile. He is arguably among the most recognized contemporary artists of the times [2].

Next we must consider whether the fact that Banksy's work qualifies as illegal vandalism means it loses artistic merit.

Art is 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 [3]. For centuries people have been using art as a means of expression, especially political expression since politics influences such a wide sphere of our lives [4]. Even though it's illegal, graffiti qualifies as a form of political art. Graffiti became the means of communication and identity for young people in New York City in the 1970s, as a response to modernism and social segregation [5].

Just because graffiti can be illegal does not discredit its artistic merit. Sometimes the legal system in place is the very thing the graffiti is trying to challenge. Moreover, even if the graffiti is unwanted and arguably unwarranted vandalism, does not take away from the fact that the piece had meaning and represented something to both the artist and any potential viewer. Ergo, just because the artistic work is not revered or valued equally by everyone, doesn't mean it is any less "art." It is simply given less value or preference depending on the observer.

[1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.sfgate.com...
[5] http://www.widewalls.ch...
Debate Round No. 1
kasig005

Con

Even though Banksy has done all those things you have described about . Banksy has no back profile and in December 2009 he had picked a fight with King Robbo a early known Graffiti maker. So i do not know why you are fight for this as not even the the oldest man or women would know his name, house or anything we should know about someone
Danielle

Pro

Banksy's graffiti has helped him gain notoriety. He does have a high profile, and whether or not he had one would not discredit any of the arguments I made in the last round. Please extend those contentions. His work (and other graffiti art) still has artistic merit even though it is illegal. Banksy's personal life is irrelevant to whether or not his work has artistic value, though the fact that he is so politically engaged proves he is engaged and emotionally motivated by the times. His art reflects his views on society, culture and inspires similar thoughtfulness by viewers.
Debate Round No. 2
kasig005

Con

HOWEVER I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BUT IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE NEWS WHICH SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED IN 2013, IT WAS TOLD THAT BANKSY MAY BE THE REASON OF THE BEGGINING OF GRAFFITI. EVEN THOUGH YOU ARGUE ABOUT HIM HAVE A BACKRGROUND HE IS NEVER INTERVIEWED AND THAT MEANS THAT THERE IS NO BIOGRAPHY ABOUT HIM.
Danielle

Pro

Whether or not Banksy has given interviews is not relevant to any of my arguments nor the resolution.

Graffiti did not originate with Banksy. The first known example of graffiti appeared in the ancient Greek city of Ephesus [1]. Modern day graffiti began with the invention of aerosol paint [2]. It became associated with the anti-establishment punk rock movement beginning in the 1970s, and then permeated the hip-hop culture of the 1980s [3]. The relevance of graffiti into these cultural movements proves its relevance and artistic merit.

Marc Ecko, an urban clothing designer, has been an advocate of graffiti as an art form stating that "Graffiti is without question the most powerful art movement in recent history, and has been a driving inspiration throughout my career" [4]. As you can see, graffiti is art that is inspired by others - and in turn inspires others to create more art.

Some graffiti images are very detailed and complex [5]. It takes a lot of skill to complete these works of art, thus they absolutely have artistic merit.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] David Hershkovits, "London Rocks, Paris Burns and the B-Boys Break a Leg", Sunday News Magazine, April 3, 1983.
[4] http://www.sohh.com...
[5] http://www.snackish.com...
Debate Round No. 3
kasig005

Con

You may say that graffiti began in Greek but after Banksy introduced Brandalism, its an excuse for the responsible graffiti drawers who do irrevelant art on property
Danielle

Pro

Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
kasig005

Con

kasig005 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Please extend my arguments.

Many thanks to anyone who reads and votes on this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 13B77 8 months ago
13B77
His theam park instalation was top tho.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ragnar// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. And for anyone in defense of all caps: https://en.wikipedia.org...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains his reasoning for all point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 8 months ago
Ragnar
---RFD---
S&G: Bolded all caps for an entire round, as if that is the last word on how to argue (more in the next comment).
Arguments: In short the instigator failed to support his false dilemma, nor even the one side of it intended (that it's vandalism), plenty of side tangents... Pro on the other hand proved significant cultural value to Banksy, which seems a very reasonable way to evaluate true artistic merit.

Arguments at length: Pro laid out a well supported case proving not just that Banksy has artistic merit, but that he goes well beyond mere graffiti, and analiated con's claim of a lack of a profile (which con clung to anyway, having perhaps not read pro's case?). Con tried to claim something about a fight, but did not tie it into his case, nor give (or provide a citation for) context with which to evaluate it.
Sources: Many were neutral, but the smithsonianmag and BBC helped pro in proving (rather than just asserting) the value of her claim, putting him on a "list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2010, he found himself in the company of Barack Obama, Steve Jobs and Lady Gaga." Which con claims still gives him no profile, which means those other people on that list are so uninfluential that they also have no profile... Needless to say, a claim without a basis.
Posted by Ragnar 9 months ago
Ragnar
S&G amendment: Con's worst offense against English was R3, such a disastrous one that I felt no need to highlight his other abuses, I further thought the crime spoke for itself without needing full context of how it's harder to read and distracting from any potential arguments hidden inside that mess. We don't use all caps all the time, precisely because of that, and because the proper use of the English language calls for certain letters to be capitalized, and the rest not. Breaking away from English form in such a strong manner, distracts from whatever is said during that... Yes, bolded all caps with increased font size, pulls the eyes from the natural flow of the words, slowing down reading, and pulling us out of the debate. To use live debate as an analogy, when one side pulls out a megaphone and yells through it at the judges for an entire round, the words are technically the same, but the meaning is distorted by the severe and intentional distraction. This is not a few words for emphasis, this is 56 individual abuses (each word in the round).

This is of course in addition to the steady failings throughout, such as his choice to not use even a single piece of punctuation in R1, R4 having just a single comma, and very poor use of it in R2 and R3 (R3 being the only one which managed to end on a period, which all rounds should). Punctuation controls the grouping of ideas, to misuse it so much forces us to interpret the ideas the debater does not mean to be lumped together into the same thought cluster. For example, during the debate not once did con refer to Banksy in the possessive form (Banksy's), even when that was likely the idea con was trying to get at ("Banksy s art," is "s" intended as a s standalone word?).

Rest of RFD unchanged (I don't think it's worthy of an additional comment, when explaining the context of how awful all caps is took twice the length of the vote)

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ragnar// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Forfeit. S&G: Bolded all caps for an entire round, as if that is the last word on how to argue. Arguments: Pro laid out a well supported case proving not just that Banksy has artistic merit, but that he goes well beyond mere graffiti, and analiated con's claim of a lack of a profile (which con clung to anyway, having perhaps not read pro's case?). Con tried to claim something about a fight, but did not tie it into his case, nor give (or provide a citation for) context with which to evaluate it. Sources: Many were neutral, but the smithsonianmag and BBC helped pro in proving (rather than just asserting) the value of her claim, putting him on a "list of the world?s 100 most influential people in 2010, he found himself in the company of Barack Obama, Steve Jobs and Lady Gaga." Which con claims still gives him no profile, which means those other people on that list are so uninfluential that they also have no profile... I just can't even...

[*Reason for removal*] While all bolded caps may be annoying, the standard for awarding S&G is that the voter has to have a difficult time reading a given side's argument. Bolded all caps words don't impede reading, and as such, this is an insufficient explanation. The rest of the RFD is sufficient.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 9 months ago
Ragnar
kasig005DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. And for anyone in defense of all caps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Readability
Vote Placed by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
kasig005DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: (1) Arguments. The BOP is even since we're talking about whether something "deserves" artistic merit, i.e. whether artistic merit should be given to someone. Con has two arguments: (a) Bansky's art is illegal, and (b) he has no profile. Con doesn't link either of those to whether it deserves "artistic merit." Pro makes a compelling case as to why graffiti has artistic merit, and how even if the graffiti is illegal, it can act as protest to such restrictions on graffiti. Pro points out that having a profile is irrelevant, and that Bansky does have a "profile" and is well-known. Con then talks about personal events of Bansky's - Pro's response that personal life is irrelevant to artistic merit is compelling and goes dropped. Con's argument on "interviews" is irrelevant too. Pro shows that graffiti can inspire others to create art, requires artistic skill/effort and has formed a powerful art movement, thus affirming that it has artistic merit. (2) Conduct. Con forfeited a round.