Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist
Debate Rounds (2)
These days, people for some unexplained reason can't tell the difference between quality modern art and some trash, which is why when you drop a glove in a modern art museum, people walk around it because they don't know whether it's art or not.
Guys like these are the worst, I mean, why do you need to enforce unrealistic standards of beauty in art? The pressure on paint-splattering beret-wearing philosophy degree-owning sixth formers to produce art that isn't rubbish is terrifying.
Artist seems like the perfect name for this bigotry that's not fit for the 21st century. Not only does it have the same suffix as other fun words, like racist or sexist, but it was also used in the dark ages to mean someone who does art, but I think all of us Liberal Green Party-voting university students can agree that those sorts of people belong in the dark ages (not that there's anything wrong with being dark, another idea that belongs in the dark ages).
My opponent seems to be extremely confused on what freedom of expression means. Freedom of expression means everyone has a fair say. You can't say art isn't people, because that is also very artist but in a completely different way. You wouldn't kick a guy in a wheelchair and then claim freedom of movement, it just wouldn't be fair. For the same reasons, you can't use freedom of expression to justify cruelly imposing unrealistic standards of what doesn't look rubbish on Modern Art.
I am not confused in any way as to the meaning of "Freedom of Expression". I will, though, admit that I misunderstood and under-read your first argument, and believed that you, in fact, were placing unrealistic standards upon art, and I apologize for my mistake. Furthermore, I did not intend for it to be placed in an analogy with you deciding to "kick a guy in a wheelchair" and claim that it is "freedom of movement." (Which, in fact, does not exist in our current bill of rights, but I do not wish to debate about that, only the topic at hand.) Anyway, I simply, believing that you were imposing the "unrealistic standards" that you mentioned earlier, meant for it to be read into as follows; You may not like another person's painting, or sculpture, or any sort of art piece, and you most certainly could complain about it, and you are constitutionally given the unalienable right to do so. You may publish your grievances, you may protest, you may do anything you like. I just believe that in the end of it all, art is art, and there will be standards, but each person will have separate standards that they deem fit in their own minds, because you can think whatever you like to. I do not have standards. I think that art is not a material thing, such as a painting. A painting could be considered a work of art, but not art itself. Art is a way to express your thoughts in a way that you, and other people may understand. You may paint a skyline scene, or a stable scene, or you may paint an abstract of calming colors such as blue and purple, in order to display your mood. In the end, I agree, you are correct about there being several people imposing those standards, but I do not think that it is as prominent of a problem as you think.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.