The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ElloGovna12
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2015 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 832 times Debate No: 69439
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

KingDebater

Pro

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).

Thank you.
ElloGovna12

Con

I am going to pull out the "Freedom of Expression" card and say that art is a form of personal expression, and is subject to opinion, not fact, which is where the popular saying, "It is an art, not a science" is derived from, meaning that the object or idea/ideal that the saying is describing is not definite, it has no solid facts, there are no regulations set on it that makes it "art" or not. This is just like humor. You and your friend in school or the workplace may have an "inside joke" based on one of your past experiences that the both of you went through together. You may be in the middle of the room, with a large amount of other people in it. You tell the joke, and a random listening bystander comes up and tells you that he does not like your joke, and that it is "not real humor." That is exactly the same thing, art is subjective to opinions, and if you like a glove, that is your thing. Some may like paint splattered on a canvas, and some may like a nice, pastoral, neat country scene painting. The human brain is a diverse and beautiful thing.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

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.

Thank you
ElloGovna12

Con

Dear Opponent,
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.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Oh my hahahaha. What a funny resolution!
Posted by imnotacop 2 years ago
imnotacop
Can this get funnier?
Posted by AFism 2 years ago
AFism
Wow a debate about opinion instead of fact. So smart. You should probably read the artist statements of the art you are insulting before you be little artists like pollock or any other contemporary artist. Ignorance seems to drive this debate.
Posted by imnotacop 2 years ago
imnotacop
artist... lmao
Posted by enternamehere 2 years ago
enternamehere
Free speach?
No votes have been placed for this debate.