The Instigator
Chronosofwisdom
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Modern art.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2019 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,013 times Debate No: 120478
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Chronosofwisdom

Con

Today the debate is simple: Modern art.
My stand is this:
Art standards have fallen to the point where there are no standards at all.
Modern art is trashy, And their excuse for it is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Art should not be made to express a statement.
Beauty is transcendent. Not just in the eye of the beholder.
WrickItRalph

Pro

Art is subjective. It's totally based on opinions and my opinion is that modern art is good. So that makes it your word against mine. How do we decide between the two of us.

Standards are just opinions that people tend to follow. Everybody's standards are different. So when you say there's not standards at all, You're speaking for the whole world, Which you can't do. So what you really mean is that the art doesn't fit YOUR standards, AKA, It's your opinion. The artists who create modern art do have standards, You just don't agree with them.

Define Trashy please.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, That is an objective fact that you cannot refute.

"art should not be made to express a statement"
That's just your opinion, Unless you can find a reason why it's immoral to do so.

"Beauty is transcendent"
You mean like god? If that's what you're saying then produce god for me and then I'll accept this claim.
Debate Round No. 1
Chronosofwisdom

Con

I wondered when I was going to end up debating you. I just figured it would be about something religious.
Starting off the debate with rebuttal? Do you even have any reasoning on your side? Oh well.

1 There once was a day when artists were expected to learn and improve from the previous generation of masters. Nowadays, It is all about what you are feeling when you create art, Not what you are actually creating. There is more than opinions to art. Standards like the golden ratio often is used in the most popular art. That is not an opinion.

2 Trashy is when Michelangelo carves the David out of stone, And the Los Angelos County Museum of Art offers us a 340 ton rock. Just a rock. Or Petra, The prized piece of art consisting of a police woman squatting and urinating, Complete with a puddle of synthetic urine. Thats what I mean by trashy.

3 No its not. Thats what this entire debate is all about.

4 When art used to be good, Artists created pieces that inspired, Uplifted, And deepened us. That has been replaced with what is ugly, Offensive, And pointless.

5 What I meant was that beauty transcends the beholder, It is something that anyone can see and appreciate the time, Effort, And quality that went into making it.

Its not a coincidence that the golden ratio is found in nature. Maybe we understand it as the beauty of nature.
WrickItRalph

Pro

Hey now, I made points. Don't reduce me to simple neigh saying.

My whole argument is that art is subjective and that standards are arbitrary. That's not a rebuttle, It's my argument.

"5 What I meant was that beauty transcends the beholder, It is something that anyone can see and appreciate the time, Effort, And quality that went into making it. "

Prove that transcendant beauty exist or this argument is baseless.

Debate Round No. 2
Chronosofwisdom

Con

Ok, Well said.

during around the renaissance period, Each artist sought the highest quality attainable and they improved on the previous generation of masters. Nowadays art seems to be only about making a statement, Which in tern leads to bad art. Art standards are not objective.

The golden ratio is a great example of transcendant beauty. I don't know a single person who does not find flowers beautiful.
The golden ratio is everywhere and has existed since nature has so it is a universal standard of beauty.
WrickItRalph

Pro

"during around the renaissance period, Each artist sought the highest quality attainable and they improved on the previous generation of masters. Nowadays art seems to be only about making a statement, Which in tern leads to bad art. Art standards are not objective. "

Okay, So I don't want to be obtuse and act like I don't understand your point. I'm a musician, So I too have snobbishly rejected music that was overly simplistic or what you would call "trashy"

The thing about art is it's not just one thing. So I would say that while it's okay to have a standard, Which judgements made of this standard COULD be objective even if the standard itself is subjective, We should also acknowledge that sending a message is okay too. It really depends on the message. I would say that if the art made is coherent and not just random lines, Then it should be respected. That is the bare standard that i could accept.

"The golden ratio is a great example of transcendant beauty. I don't know a single person who does not find flowers beautiful. "

This is the argument from ignorance fallacy, AKA the pesonal incredulity fallacy. You're basically saying that you can't imagine how somebody can't find the golden ratio beautiful, But it's stilll subjective. Plus everyone likes it for a different reason if they like it at all. I don't find flowers partiularly beautiful (Yeah, I know, I'm a monster) but I find the ratio itself beautiful becase I love math. Also, Doesn't the golden ratio have a more popular name? Just a side note. I had a friend into metaphysics who use to talk about it all the time and how it shows up everywhere. Nature is fun.

I want to adress the comment you made about the David being a really expensive hunk of stone. You say beauty is transcendant, But millions of people have found beauty in the david and you haven't. Doesn't that hurt your case? If beauty is transcendant, Then it should be universally agreed upon, But nobody can agree with anything, Hence why this website exist. Lol.

I'm sure you're famiar with warhal's campbell soup painting. I found it to be stupid, But peole liked it. It's all subjective and we should respect people's opinions instead of saying they're being "trashy" or not artistic.

Your floor :)




Debate Round No. 3
Chronosofwisdom

Con

I see the point you are making over and over again: beauty is subjective. Ok, But I have put out multiple claims which you reject to acknowledge. Such as the the entire reason that art is created: to express beauty. Not to make a crude statement.
Or that the inspiring, Uplifting, And motivational have been replaced by the pointless, Arbitrary, And purely offensive.

I went to the Oakland museum of art recently and i saw this clay object (at best it looked like a warped clay pot) I was trying to understand how it even got in there since I created something similar when I was four with a hunk of craft clay. Then I saw a video of the person making it. It looked like it took a lot of effort. But you know what other pieces of art that took even more effort? Greek Urns. These magnificent pieces of art have been kept through the centuries as wonders of greek imagination. What I saw in the museum of modern art was a warped, Twisted, And mangled version of that beauty. Very fitting.

You reject bad music because it is bad music. Simplicity has nothing to do with it. A simple way of putting it is as if a very bad skater fell down on the ice and got a low score. Whats happening with modern art is if that same skater demanded that their performance scored as high as the most disciplined skater. Eventually it would get to the point where training would be pointless and judging would be pointless.

Everyone finds the golden ratio beautiful in some way. Studies have shown that even human faces follow the golden ratio.

The $10 million hunk of stone I referred to was the piece of modern art that was just a rock. Not the David. I actually find the David to be a marvelous work of art.

That would be considered as a fine example of modern art. The paintings message is non-existent but people appreciate it because its semi-realistic. I already gave you an example of what I meant by trashy. Take it or leave it.

My final point is that artists have recently been lazy. They scribble on a canvas and expect the viewer to interpret it. An example of this it Robert Rauschenberg's blank white painting sold for millions. I could do the same thing in a few minutes. There is no color, Style, Or effort. He expects you to fill in that big blank gap that the painting left in your mind.

Pleasure debating with you.
WrickItRalph

Pro

You said "the entire reason that art is created: to express beauty. Not to make a crude statement"

You're assuming that. People make art for all kinds of reasons. Some people do it to make money, Some people do it to send a message, Some people want to be famous, Etc. That's just what you think it should be for. Art is subjective. If there was transcendent beauty, We'd have proof of it.

You said "You reject bad music because it is bad music"

No, I reject certain music because I don't like it. I do have objective standards, But they're based on my opinion. I like music with lyrics that I think are clever. But other people might like simplistic lyrics or they might have a different definition of clever.

"Everyone finds the golden ratio beautiful in some way. Studies have shown that even human faces follow the golden ratio"

This is categorically false. This would assume that everyone in the world is aware of the ratio and if there was something in the world that people universally agreed upon, It would be headline news.

"The $10 million hunk of stone I referred to was the piece of modern art that was just a rock. Not the David. I actually find the David to be a marvelous work of art. "

My mistake.

"My final point is that artists have recently been lazy"

You can't possibly know that. Just because their art looks easy, Doesn't mean they didn't work hard on it.

Good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Same here.
Posted by Chronosofwisdom 3 years ago
Chronosofwisdom
I come here to get better at debate.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Good debate. You were consistent with your arguments without being overly dismissive. Perfect discourse.
Posted by Chronosofwisdom 3 years ago
Chronosofwisdom
They paid $10 million for that rock.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
What constitutes art? Music? Dancing? Vine Videos? Shadow Puppets? Synchronized Base Jumping?
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
What is your definition of modern art and what years does it span from?
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Beauty is most definitely in the eye of the beholder. That said, I agree with you.
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
I would debate this, But frankly, I agree with your point of view!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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