The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Should art be free?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Alisya1 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2021 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 302 times Debate No: 127702
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I welcome everyone today to the debate on the topic "Should art be free? ".

The subject of our talk today is the following situation.
Two philanthropists have donated their private art collections to museums as they want art to be democratic and accessible to everyone. But one of these collections will be on display at the American Museum, Which charges an admission fee. So should art be free?

To begin with, Both collections are of incredible value and consist of works by Guercino, Guido Reni, Luca Giorgiano, Pietro da Cortona and Giovanni Antonio Pellegrini from the Baroque period, While the Cuban collection consists of 33 works by Picasso and other works by Braque, Gris and L"ger.

The reasons why both collections ended up in museums are quite noble: the importance and beauty of these works should become available to everyone, But in reality everything is completely different.


Hello dear colleagues! :)
This is a very interesting situation I must admit. . . Of course, Museums need money to buy more collections and support the ones they already have, So they cannot rely only on charities. And yet I agree more with the opinion that these museums should be free, Because they store the history of mankind, Our history, Our heritage, Which should be free for everyone.
I will be very grateful for the comments and counterarguments of my classmates!

Ksenia S.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for inviting me to the debate!
I partially agree with Ksusha, But what if! IF! They will not want to pay for music albums NOW, There may come a moment when they will not want to pay for attending concerts because "ArT sHoUld Be frEe. " haha"this can be just unfair :, <

Ksenia A.


I will say that on this question I have my own opinion and an example, And I think that my classmates will agree with me, Won"t they?
Art should be free at least for those who go to school and students, Because it is often said that young people are dumb and are not interested in culture but can you be interested in it if museums are expensive (I mean not our museums but really cool museums)
Oh, AND MORE! The state, On the one hand, Says that it cares about young people, But in fact it is wrong. It is good to it that people are not very smart and do not know how to think critical. To be honest I do not see anything wrong with this, Because when you touch or watch smth beautiful it helps you to be more (I don"t know how to say it) humane? Idk.
Excuse me for some provocation and for a long comment. . . But it's true

Milana T.
Debate Round No. 2


STUDENT1: well, This is all understandable~~~, But look at this, "what you pay for is valued more than what you get for free. " i think this is a very good quote that describes our thoughts without hypocrisy. Because when we take something free, It seems to us that it is worse than what someone paid for. In our world, Money means the value of things and art is no exception.


STUDENT 2: You know, I don"t want to argue with anyone, But it"s annoying that people are not used paying for art. Our people (well, In Russia, There, Or in Belarus, Etc. ) respect piracy, And take pride in the ability to quickly find a link to a book in free access, Watch movies, Just download pictures to send them like cards on holidays, Get annoyed by advertising, Which is inserted in the middle of a seemingly free music track on VKontakte. I totally agree with Ksusha A. That this is just unfair :(((

Lera B.


STUDENT 1: Well, I would say that people in general do not have an understanding of what benefits art gives them. It is sad but true but art is like chips in a supermarket and seems to be a pleasant thing, But we doubt its benefits, But art is not so important when a person needs to think about earning not just a ticket to the theater or museum, But food. So I can only say that people should pay for art if they can afford it, And those who cannot, Can find free ways to enjoy art. So it's hard to say or even agree or disagree with my classmates. Thank you for attention!


STUDENT 2: I do not understand how we can talk about free art, If people spend their time and effort, And some of the artists want to get paid for it, Of course we cannot control piracy (a very good point, I must admit), But pay for art is needed, Unless you are an art volunteer. I would be offended.

Debate Round No. 3


STUDENT 1: I also agree with Ksyusha that people can be arrogant and take for free what took time and effort. Also, Artists buy expensive paints, And they are very expensive, Did you go to ArtTerritory? Musicians are buying instruments. Writers spoil their eyesight, And ballerinas spoil their health so that people look at beauty. I think we understand that if art is free, More people can see it, But art is also work! Don't PROVE ME WRONG!

Masha <333

STUDENT 2: I can say that bad art should be free and good art should be paid.



Who decide for quality of art? All artists etc. In the beginning they were bad and they were unlikely to get money first, They need experience and a lot of time to start getting money. I still agree with everyone who said that you have to pay for art, Because artists also need to live and buy things for themselves, The same as a doctor and a policeman, But if we are talking about freelancers, And if we are talking about state theaters and museums, You still have to pay to keep buildings in good condition and support the culture of the population, Thank you all, It was very interesting! :)

Juliana \(^_^)/
Debate Round No. 4


Thanks to all the participants for your opinions and for sharing your views on this problem in the comments. In turn, I can say that the topic is very complex and almost eternal at the level of the question "should we clone people. " I hope it was interesting for you to chat with each other! =)

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by viejito 2 weeks ago
Everybory know the value that each piece of art has, But when matter about famous artistes even the century when it was create, It have a hight value. It's known that galery need to recive money, But see a piece of art at first hand should be profitable and accessible to many people interested to see them.
Posted by Angiex0 1 month ago
It should be up to the owner of the art. In this instance, The owner of the art is the museum and as such should get to decide if people need to pay to see their property or not.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.