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

Should the money concentrated in arts be reduced?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 92817
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

Just look at those famous artists, actors and musicians. They are getting much more money than they are worth, and that money is going to waste. I think that establishments supporting them should get more money, such as cinema halls, art exhibition halls, and whoever helps musicians.
missmozart

Con

I accept this debate.

R2: Arguments only
R3: Rebuttal and conclusion

I would like to kindly ask Pro to confirm this and I look forward to your arguments,
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

I suggest con starts rebuttals in round 2, although it is con's choice.
Visual art
I think that money in the arts in overly concentrated and I call for job equality. An artist has so many other supporters, such as the people who set him up an auction, who manage to make his work famous and who help him do the business. It is true they get money, but not as much as the artist themselves. While art is a very delicate and difficult job, I simply don't see the point of allocating billions of dollars to it. Perhaps a few million or a hundred thousand would be more apt. Art has just become a way for the rich to get rid of their black money.
Film industry
Same goes for actors. There are so many supporting casts, make-up artists, directors, cameramen, producers etc. but why does the main actor has such a large share of the money? Shouldn't cinema halls and supporting casts get more of the money as well? Acting is a hard job, but there is no investment into it except time. It's the producer and director who have to take the risks, they should get more money.
As for musicians, why the main lead singer is the one who is most popular and get all the money? What about the instrumentalists, the back singers, the concert managers, editors and makeup artists? They should get a bigger portion.

And of course the amount concentrated in the arts field is absolutely ridiculous. While the farmer has not enough money to even get food for himself, while the scientist keeps begging for funds, the few famous artisans can walk around in luxury? This is just unfair, and there must be something done about this system.
missmozart

Con

Thank you Pro for initiating this interesting debate. I will begin with my rebuttal as you asked, then followed by my main arguments.


(Artist: a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria whether creative artists or performing artists [1])


_____________

Rebuttals:

1. "I think that establishments supporting them [actors] should get more money, such as cinema halls..."

Let's take a closer look at your statement. What you are suggesting is that cinema halls should receive more money by showing a movie than the actors who actually acted in the movie. First of all, I am sure we can all agree that acting is much more difficult than working in a cinema hall-I am pretty confident to say that all of us here (unless you're under-age of course) has the ability to work in a cinema hall no problem without any specific skills required. Therefore, if working in a cinema hall would earn more money than being an actor, then more people would want to work there and less people would want to act. Therefore, acting will be seen as a low-class job even though it requires much more skill and talent. The decrease number of actors would mean a greater demand for them, leading to less talented people being accepted to act and bad movies being created. Without good actors in movies, a cinema would not be able to make money because they do not have anything worthy to show. But actors on the other-hand do not need excellent cinemas in order to produce excellent movies.

2. "I call for job equality..."

Yes, I completely agree with job equality. But it would definitely not work out if cleaning Angelina Jolie's house earned you the same money as Angelina herself. That is basically what you're saying. Just to refute your example, a lead singer earns more money than the background singers because they're better. It's a much easier job being a background singer than the lead. Angelina Jolie earns more money than her cleaners because she deserves more money. I really hope I don't need to explain why.

3. "Acting is a hard job, but there is no investment into it except time."

You obviously do not know much, if not anything about how much input goes into become an artist. First of all, yes, there is a lot of time invested into becoming an artist. But time is worth so much more than you think. Let's take a violinist for example. Becoming a famous violinist takes years of training from a very early age. They have to practise hours every day in order to fulfil their ambition. Therefore, it's not only "time" they're sacrificing but also parts of their childhood where instead of practising, they could be playing with their friends more etc. If you think studying for school is difficult to incorporate into your time, imagine that along with the hours of practise an artist does.

Being an artist not only requires huge effort, but also tons of money. A yearly tuition at the New York Film Academy is $31,500 [2] for example. Imagine an actor studying how to act there for six years from the age of 12. That's $189,000 altogether not to mention transportation and costs for acting camps and masterclasses etc. Many actors also sing and dance. So imagine the cost of acting along with singing and dancing tuitions. Even the families who are well off would find the costs of the total tuition extremely difficult to manage. You might only see "time" being in invested but a lot of people will understand and see how much effort is behind the fame.

4. "It's the producer and director who have to take the risks..."

Artists have to take just as many risks as producers and directors. Each year, millions of students are accecpted into art academies/school and they all share the same dream. But out of all that million, how many of them will actually become famous? The world cannot remember so many names. It doesn't matter sometimes how much money and effort is spent into becoming an artist because at the end of the day, you could become a world-renowned star, or a homeless busking in the streets if you don't have what it takes. That was not intended to be funny- it is indeed reality. That is why being an artist is so risky and I am amazed that you are completely blind to that fact.

5. "While the farmer has not enough money to even get food for himself, while the scientist keeps begging for funds, the few famous artisans can walk around in luxury?"

You need to state more specifically what you mean. Not all farmers are poor- there are many intelligent farmers who have gotten extremely rich [3] by inventing new farming methods, machinery and others. Same goes for scientists. Apart from work ability, a business sense and good marketing skills are required in order to become successful. I feel as if you're just randomly picking examples of poor people who cannot afford things and comparing them with famous artists. There is absolutely no logic to that point. It's almost as everything you're saying in your arguments is related to your own form of communism: everyone should receive equal pay and opportunites regardless of their diligence, effort and skill.

Now that I have rebuted all your points, I move on to my main arguments.

________

Arguments:

Should the money concertrated on arts be reduced? The answer is no and here's why.

Although it seems as if a country should invest all their money on employment, housing, infrastructure etc and think about the arts last, art is actually the fastest way to improve the economy. Let's take Vienna (Austria) for example. Vienna can be seen as the "City of [classical] Music" [4]. Not only is it home to the world's most prestigious opera house (Vienna Opera House) along with many other music halls, but you can also find some of the world's most famous paintings and art galleries in Vienna. The amount of museums, buildings and churches designed by renowned architects is unbelieveable. But why on earth did Vienna concentrate so much on art in the first place when there were obviously much more 'important issues'? The immense concentration of arts brings millions of tourists to the city each year. One ticket to the Vienna Opera House costs over €200 and there is not one day where all the seats are not sold out. Because of the standards of art in the past of Vienna, composers such as Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert all decided to live/study there. In Vienna, tourists all over the world come to see Mozart's and other famous artists' graves in the Vienna Central Cemetery. This creates spin-off businesses such as restaurants and hotels. Art alone in Vienna has brought so much wealth and because of this, employment is plentiful and the government have plenty of money to invest on other things. Vienna is one of the richest cities in the world [5] and this is mainly due to its art.

Unfortunately, I do not have much more space before the numbers of characters reaches its maximum so I will have to leave it at that. However, I have made many points already in my rebuttal.

In conclusion, artists should NOT earn less money than average people because it is not an average job and also, the money concentrted on arts should not be reduced because from Vienna, we can see how much it benefits all of society.

Thank you for reading and I beg you to propose.

Citations:
[1] http://www.dictionary.com...
[2] https://www.nyfa.edu...
[3] http://www.marketwatch.com...
[4] https://www.wien.info...
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

I concede, I messed up the wordings of the resolution.
You win this one, for now.
Next debate "Should there be a wide gap between main artists and supporting workers"
missmozart

Con

We'll call it a tie since I didn't allow you to refute any of my points in our previous debate :)
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 7 months ago
Midnight1131
A lot of today's art lacks talent? Bruh, go listen to some Chris Potter.
Posted by ThinkBig 7 months ago
ThinkBig
Advice to con: You argued extremely well and I could see virtually no flaws in the way you presented your arguments. The only difference I would make is to present your opening arguments before the rebuttals. This way, you would be able to get the most development out of your arguments and you can spend the next round(s) for rebuttals.
Posted by ThinkBig 7 months ago
ThinkBig
Further advice to pro: Please cite sources and use complete sentences.

Citation needed:
Pro argues that there is far too much money going into music and arts instead of other topics. No source, however, is provided. How much money is given to arts as opposed to science and farming? Those would be helpful for your arguments.

I noticed several instances in which you failed to use complete sentences.

"As for musicians, why the main lead singer is the one who is most popular and get all the money?"

This is grammatically incorrect. A better way to word this question would be "Why does the lead singer get more money and more fame than the rest of the band?"

"Same goes for actors."

This is a fragment sentence.
Posted by ThinkBig 7 months ago
ThinkBig
Debate feedback

I originally voted for con as pro conceded the debate. However, I failed to note that con agreed to leave the debate as tied, so I have changed my vote. However, since the moderators require feedback in some way, regardless if you tie the debate or not, I shall do so.

Conduct: I would award the conduct point to pro for humbly conceding the debate rather than forfeiting.

Arguments: Con would win, as per the forfeit.

Advice to pro: Be careful on how you word the resolution. I found that the resolution was rather confusing and it was not clear what you wanted to debate until you made your opening arguments.

I would further advise that that you give an additional break between paragraphs. Although that won't work in academic papers, on debate.org it really improves the readability on your arguments. I found the format of your arguments to be confusing and hard to read.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

No points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: Tie

[*Reason for removal*] Even if the voter chooses to award no points, the voter must still provide feedback to the debaters in some form. This is not feedback.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Amedexyius// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: The argument in which Pro provided as the instigator of this debate was not very sound, due to it's lack of being backed by a source foundation. This lack of sources allowed Con to provide a very powerful argument which in the most simplest of terms, had overwhelmed the few points that Pro made in Round 1. Con's use of sources can be expected to be provided when her argument was larger, not just by the terms of this debate, but debating in general for a strategic offence which was brought down by Con's rebuttal, and other stronger arguments. It was obvious, the power of Con's argument in Round two, which had also allowed Pro to concede, therefore giving the confirmed points of persuasion and reliability of sources to missmozart.

[*Reason for removal*] The debaters did agree to a tie in the final round. In cases like this, the voter should respect the wishes of the debaters.
************************************************************************
Posted by lord_megatron 8 months ago
lord_megatron
I don't need to remind you of the invisible art, hahahahha
Posted by missmozart 8 months ago
missmozart
Art is not stupid. It takes years and years of hard-work for an artist to "get famed". If a talented artist spends hours every day practising art from the age of six to adult, I'm pretty sure they deserve to just "sneeze on a black canvas" and earn "thousands of dollars" :)
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 8 months ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
Art is generally stupid. If a "famed" artist just sneezes on a blank canvas, it is instantly worth thousands of dollars. A lot of today's art takes no talent.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 8 months ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
Art is generally stupid. If a "famed" artist just sneezes on a blank canvas, it is instantly worth thousands of dollars. A lot of today's art takes no talent.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SJM 7 months ago
SJM
lord_megatronmissmozartTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both agreed to a tie.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 7 months ago
Midnight1131
lord_megatronmissmozartTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession on the side of Pro. Edit: Con agreed to a tie.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 7 months ago
ThinkBig
lord_megatronmissmozartTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters agreed to a tie. I apologize for failing to see this earlier. Feedback in comments.