The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
chrislee125
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Money wasted on art works is absurd

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: 7/2/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 741 times Debate No: 93297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

I get these jokes that people paid for invisible art and someone bought a blank canvas for a few million, and in another one a completely blue canvas for half a billion dollars. If this is not absurd, I don't know what it is.
No semantics/trolling.
No forfeiting.
Violating these rules result in automatic victory of pro.
chrislee125

Con

"In my own philanthropy and business endeavors, I have seen the critical role that the arts play in stimulating creativity and in developing vital communities.The arts have a crucial impact on our economy and are an important catalyst for learning, discovery, and achievement in our country
""Paul G. Allen, Co-Founder, Microsoft
I will be arguing against the resolution that money wasted on art works is absurd.
Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance. Everything has value. So in order to obtain anything, you have to realize the importance of value in anything, especially art. If you want to obtain art, it is going to take something of equal value.
I will now give two contentions that support my case.
Contention 1: Importance. Importance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means value or significance. Art is a very valuable thing because many artists have suffered for their art. It took Michelangelo 26 years just to make the statue of David. Do you think he would want to sell David for just a couple of bucks because it's "absurd art"? Of course not. So when we are paying for something like art, we exchange it for equal value. If the artist spent as much or more time on their art as Michelangelo, then I believe they should get a very high price for their art.
Contention 2: History. Art is literally a definition of a culture. Our art will be a time traveling device for people of future times. It will show our history, culture, and families. Because of this, art is very valuable. If it is destroyed, our cultures and histories are destroyed. So that's why it is sold for so much money. You can't just give art to anyone off the street. But if someone is willing to respect it's value by giving up equal value then you know that person can be trusted to protect our histories and cultures.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

Invisible art- HAHAHA
Just stare at a blank wall lol.
http://www.cbc.ca...
Time on 1 painting = money
I have painted on one canvas for 3 years. It is trash since I am no artist, but the auction starts at 2 million. Pay me now.
History
Not often so. What does a blank blue canvas, Mona Lisa or a goat gotta do with culture?
Furthermore, you could easily photocopy the paintings, mass produce them and sell them. The portrait of Jesus Christ is one example. If you want to immortalize culture, give it to everyone so that everyone remembers, not just to a few filthy rich who would forget about it in a few days and the world wouldn't get that info through art as you claim.

Arguments
Gap between manufacturing and sale value
Let's admit it, paint, canvas, paper and artistic tools barely cost 500-9000 dollar at top-notch quality. Yet the same artworks are sold for millions, or sometimes billions of dollars. This is a far too wide profit margin. Any middle class will find this highly unreasonable, yet the filthy rich waste their money over this trash.
Undeserving artists
Half the artworks are absurd and not really great, but sold because the artist has good fame. Look at my sources for more info. A ridiculous blue canvas with a line sold for millions! And that certainly didn't take time nor represent cultures. I would sell graffiti at a better price than it is now, but too bad its not counted as art by most. Graffiti may be called vandalism, but it is the best art form according to me. It even has a blending of text and pictures.
http://cavemancircus.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...
https://www.bloomberg.com...
chrislee125

Con

First, I shall attack my opponents case and his attacks, then I'll review my own case.
My opponent's contention 1: Gap between manufacturing and sale value is misunderstood and no longer stands as a valid point for this debate. My opponent does not understand or realize that you don't have to be rich to be an artist. Most artists are dirt poor before they make their creations and dirt poor when they died. Famous artists like Vincent Van Gogh created amazing paintings and still never gained much wealth. You don't need to be rich to create something amazing. You don't need wealth to be talented. That's why the paintings are so valuable. These artists go through years of hard work in harsh conditions just to bring beautiful creations to the world. They should be paid a lot for their paintings for sacrificing so much for it.
My opponent's contention 2: Undeserving artists is also a misunderstood point and no longer stands. First of all, your sources aren't serious concrete evidence for your debate. I'm sorry I just can take the site called caveman circus (that offers such great things like "Babes" and gifs) very seriously. I need some better evidence. My opponent did not look at this painting at a different perspective. The form of this art is called abstract expressionism. It is actually kind of a brilliant and beautiful piece of art. This painting actually does represent many things. If my opponent would have done some more research on it he would've seen the symbolism in all of the art forms. I'll send you a link of the description of what it represents. I agree with my opponent that graffiti is pretty cool. But it is not worth much and can't be sold for 3 main reasons.
1. Not always art. Most graffiti is vulgar words, male gentiles, and gang signs.
2. Against the law. Graffiti is vandalism and it is very disrespectful.
3. Can't sell it. Being that it is part of public property, someone can't just go draw on something and be like "this is my art, I would like to sell it" even if it is good or bad. You can't just take half of the building you drew on, that breaks constitutional rights.
So even though graffiti is awesome, its value can't grow to the height of professional paintings because of these reasons.
My opponents attacks don't affect my contentions.
My opponent said " I have painted on one canvas for 3 years. It is trash since I am no artist, but the auction starts at 2 million. Pay me now." Obviously, no one would want to pay for that because they can see that it took three years to create "trash". If it took you 10 years to write a book but it has terrible grammar, do you think people would buy it? Of course not. My opponent is confused on how I said artists spend a lot of time on their art. They sacrifice all of these years to create something amazing, not "trash".
The Mona Lisa has a great effect on culture. The Mona Lisa is in fact the most famous painting in the world. There are songs about it, books about it, and it influenced many other artists. It was the first of its kind. The painting uses a lot of new concepts that were never used before it. All the points of the painting are pointing towards Mona Lisa's smile. This painting is really cool because their is a lot more than meets the eye. Lots of small details that Leonardo De Vinci created. It represents the culture at the time because it shows the advancements in painting. There were many advancements in all subjects during the Renaissance period. It is a great representational object for history and culture.
Sure, you could photo copy a famous painting, but that would just lower the value of the painting all together and make it nor very special anymore. It would be like if you bought a brand new XBOX. It's pretty valuable and special to you. But if someone gave you a million XBOXs then the value and respect of a XBOX goes down where you wouldn't even care if its value was damaged or not.
Most works of art are donated to museums anyways. But I do agree with my opponent that all works of art should be available to the public and not in some dusty old attic. Although photo copying is more convenient, and is more accessible, it still lowers the value of the art itself.
Now, I will review my own case.
Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance.
Contention 1: Importance. Importance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means value or significance. Art is a very valuable thing because many artists have suffered for their art.
Contention 2: Contention 2: History. Art is literally a definition of a culture. Our art will be a time traveling device for people of future times. It will show our history, culture, and families.
I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the the negative side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

Gap in manufacturing and sale value
Modern, alive artists have become damn rich. Furthermore, if the money is not helping the original, dirt-poor creator, why does selling it justify such a price? The guy that dug it up from the dead artists home has not invested much time or money, yet here you go, 20 million for you. Height of nonsense.
Graffiti
1. Gang signs look pretty cool actually. And the offensive ones are the reason why it is illegal and termed vandalism.
2. Reason given above.
3. They can sell photos of it, or take an impression of fresh, spray-can paint. Or they could do it on their own damn walls.
Blank Blue painting with a line is hard-work and symbolic?
Furthermore, art work of famous artists is trash according to the majority, but the rich autocrats use "symbolism and other trash" to justify their senseless purchases. Buy my trash as well. I have another book that I created for about 5 years, it has good grammar at least, come on, pay up a few million. Know my next project? I will make a cross on a canvas, make up some symbolism about it, maybe it represents good forces being trapped by evil and the outside help unable to penetrate the boundaries made by evil, and lie that I spent I life-time on it (not all artists do that, but then you never know), get a few friends to vouch for me and become a mega-millionaire. You wait and see.
Mona Lisa is just the painting of a woman. Stop giving random reasons. So what if it influenced other artists? That should be considered bad, for plagiarism and the unoriginal ideas. Wouldn't it be better that artists cook up their own painting, song, and book from their own inspiration? I think so too. I don't get how technological advancements and a woman are related, unless you are a lost romantic.
X-box, games, books, movies are art available to the masses. Why not the same with visual art? I want to lower the value. The value for it has been set far higher than it actually should be.
X-box already has a few million copies, so there. It can't be even more mass-produced as it needs metal and electrical components, and is a difficult as well as a costly manufacturing process. But since we have many tons of newspapers, photo copying art shouldn't be that costly.
A book written by hand is unique. Why not sell it for a few billion? It gives all the things (culture, history, symbolism) that art does. It is a completely unique story and a great experience. Yet you still typed it out and sold millions of copies of it?
That is exactly what you are doing with art. Why not mass produce the paintings and sell them to the masses, rather than giving history only to the filthy rich who won't share, or to the museums that charge us much more heavily on their tickets, and are not open all the time? The art museum charged me about 10 dollars just to view the painting. They don't even let me touch it, even if I say I will not damage it. Shouldn't I have not gone there at all?
Contention 1
Art is not important/valuable as it most artists have not suffered or worked for their art, nor have they created anything great. And the fact that the money doesn't go to the dead artists like Picasso and Vinci, but to filthy rich art merchants.
Contention 2
Art will be a time-travelling device for the extremely rich, which is not fair. I recommend mass-producing the paintings through photocopy and selling it, while the original gets a much cheaper public exhibition for all. There are many more devices of history, such as history books, this debate and other data on the internet, other novels such as autobiographies, music and sometimes realistic movies. Art is not an efficient device for conveying history, for a blue canvas doesn't seem very historic, and while invisible art may be hoax, I don't get what those people were looking at in the photo.
The guardian
Why does the source seems to be rather sarcastic???? It seems to imply that it was a waste of money (now you get why I hate symbolism). Besides, it but expresses an opinion that the painting was good, and we are not supposed to consider the word of media as absolute.
Caveman
It says don't take their word for it. Yet, the blue painting price was true. If you bother to verify the others, you would find that they too had the same price.
My sources
http://www.theverge.com... (million x-boxes made and sold)
chrislee125

Con

Now, I shall go over my opponents attacks, then I will review my own case and close.
First of all, I would like to ask my opponent to refrain from swearing. Seriously dude, you don't need to curse to prove your point.
My grandpa is an artist, and I don't think he has ever been wealthy.
Well lets go back to the importance of value. An artist spent 20 or so years making a wonderful work of art. Many people see its value and want to buy it. This work of art is like the artists baby, you could say. It seems like the art and the artist are almost the same. They feel as one with another, or so the artist feels. Even though they need the money, it would still be kind of hard to part with your creation. That's why the price is so high. The value of the creation to the creator is almost too high to part with.
The guy that dug up the old painting did not create the painting. Therefore, any intelligent person and good willed person would give it to a museum or the artists family. But selling it would just be stupid. That would be like if you gave your teacher homework that isn't yours and has a different name on it. If you are not a credible source you won't get an exchange of value.
Also, why do you think that anyone who likes art is a filthy rich scum bag? I like art and I can see the symbolism in it and I can barley afford my own car.
My opponent seems to have failed to defend his point on graffiti. Sure, you could find a way to bootleg sell it, but that just diminishes the value. Also, the only gang signs I see are offensive. Its not like a gang is going to be a happy group of people that does community service by drawing cool gang signs. In fact, they are quite the opposite. When you are in an all out war with the police and other gangs, I don't think you will be spray painting very nice things.
Obviously, my opponent decided to remain in ignorance and not view the painting from a different perspective. My opponent is not looking at the true value, he is looking for some kind of amazing thing that you can see from a glance. For example, If my opponent were to look at a fork he would see a pointy metal thingy with no value at all. But, obviously, we all see a fork to be a tool of great value when we are enjoying a meal. So, what I'm trying to tell my opponent is that you can't come down to a conclusion on something just from seeing one point of view of it. You need to see all sides of the story to properly comprehend the value of something.
A majority does not decide what is good or bad. Your conscience does that. And who said that most of the majority believes in your opinion?
I don't need some rich dude to tell me what symbolism is in a painting because I can find it for myself. If a rich man told you the sky was yellow would you believe him? Of course not. When we talk about symbolism in a painting, we don't see it there because a rich man said it was there. We see symbolism because we have eyes of our own and consciences of our own to see it for ourselves. We aren't as idiotic as goldfish.
When I gave the book example, I wasn't specifically talking about the grammar. I was talking about the value. If people see that your trashy book doesn't have value, they won't buy it. The same goes with your trashy painting. You can lie all you want, But any intelligent person could see that you have no value for your painting and that you are just trying to make a quick buck. People have done that too. Its called con selling and usually only easily led people fall for it.
Yet again, my opponent has decided to remain in ignorance when it comes to the Mona Lisa. I'm not giving you random reasons, those are the actually descriptions and characteristics of the painting. I advise you to actually look at the painting instead of jumping to an ignorant conclusion.
Also, its not considered plagiarism when you are influenced by something. In fact, it has nothing to do with plagiarism. If I read an inspirational quote and was influenced to do something good, should I be charged with plagiarism. No. Plagiarism, is to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas. Artist can use some of the great techniques used in the Mona Lisa for their painting, but they can't copy Mona Lisa entirely and say that it is their own.
And for some reason, I guess painting is all about women for some reason, according to my opponent. What I said was that the Mona Lisa uses mathematical and artistic advancements that were never used before. So that's why the Mona Lisa was such a great addition to culture and history.
Many paintings have already been photocopied and mass produced. Including the Mona Lisa, which sells at $5.02 dollars now on amazon. It seems like my opponent has completely ignored the importance of value also.
Sure, a book a unique, but anyone can write a decent book. But it takes more talent to create a work of art. Also art includes many emotions that can't be expressed through writing.
They won't let you touch the paintings because they are very valuable and rubbing your grimy hands all over them shows that you have no respect for the value of the painting. If you went there just to touch the paintings and not to experience the true values of the works of art, then you truly are a victim of extreme ignorance.
You can't really give money to dead people, sorry to tell you that. But before an artist dies he/she usually entrust all of his/her works of art to someone he/she knows will take care of it.
Art is a time traveling device for all.
The guardian isn't an opinion, it is just describing what the painting is symbolizes. It's not sarcastic at all, you're just viewing it in a sarcastic way. It doesn't imply in any way the the painting was a waste of money either.
The caveman did give true prices, but it did give the opinion that they are "Ridiculous pieces of art". The caveman circus isn't as much of a credible source of information at the guardian is either. But anyways, I guess we aren't debating on whose source is better, so I will just leave it at that.
I will now review my own case.
Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance.
Contention 1: Importance. Importance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means value or significance. Art is a very valuable thing because many artists have suffered for their art.
Contention 2: Contention 2: History. Art is literally a definition of a culture. Our art will be a time traveling device for people of future times. It will show our history, culture, and families.
I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the the negative side of this debate.

Art is a very important and valuable part of our culture that we should recognize and respect instead of ignoring and despising it.

I would like to thank you for your time and for this debate. I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate.

Sources:
https://www.amazon.com...
Here is my grandfather who was an artist. http://www.deseretnews.com...
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chrislee125 1 year ago
chrislee125
It's an obituary about his life, not his paintings. I put that link there so that you would know that he was an artist like I said, not for you to critique it. The debate is over, let the people vote.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
Your grandfather didn't get the PR(media) and symbolism paragraph he needed, otherwise you too would be a filthy rich millionaire
Posted by chrislee125 1 year ago
chrislee125
How is that ignorant? Anyone can do anything. Anyways the debate is over, let the people vote.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
"Sure, a book a unique, but anyone can write a decent book"
Ignorant fools
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
forgot to add, the blue painting price is true as your own source says so
Posted by chrislee125 1 year ago
chrislee125
http://www.louvre.fr...
This is about the Mona Lisa.
Posted by chrislee125 1 year ago
chrislee125
https://www.theguardian.com...
Here is for the blue painting.
Posted by chrislee125 1 year ago
chrislee125
OK will do.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
I would recommend you start arguments in round 1
Posted by chrislee125 1 year ago
chrislee125
so first round ill accept, then you will write your argument in the next round?
No votes have been placed for this debate.