Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane

Thank you, That1User, for accepting this debate. Let’s have fun
 
I Argument: Introduction
 
I.a Art, including, to mention just a few of that count noun’s multiple iterations, painting, sculpture, music, illustration, and literature, is either sacred or profane in an exclusively secular sense. To be sure, religion of a variety of its multiple and diverse denominations has a strong influence on art of the varied expressions noted above, but, for the purposes of this debate, those religious versions of both sacred and profane will be ignored. This is sacred, or profane of a world’s perspective. The debate has not even much relevance with the U.S. First Amendment of the Constitution, that which guarantees the various forms of freedom of speech. Including artistic expression. In fact, it may have more to do with the Constitution’s Article I, section 8, clause 3, to wit, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…”[1]  
 
I.b My argument is that art is sacred, i.e., it complies with sacred’s given definition from the Full Description of this debate: adj. b. Dedicated, set apart, exclusively appropriated to some person or some special purpose.  We’ll concentrate on the latter phrase: “…or some special purpose.” That purpose is much greater than that referenced first [decoration] by the 20thcentury Spanish artist, Pablo Picasso, who said, “Art is not for decoration; it is an instrument of war.”[2]  Yes, we tend to hang paintings on walls, place sculpture in key indoor and outdoor places, music in a compatible listening space, etc., as features of decoration and appreciation. 
 
I.b.1 But, Picasso, himself, made good on his quote by his celebrated, and rather large monochrome painting, Guernica,now housed in the Prado Museum [Madrid, Spain], where I traveled recently just to see it. Its size is large enough for a battlefield; 4 x 8 meters, occupying the whole of one long wall in the museum. It was painted as a protest against the Spanish Civil War [therefore, “an instrument of war”].  It happens to be my personal favorite of all paintings by all artists, including mine, of which half-a-dozen are featured on my house walls, though all mine are matters of entertainment, if they must be placed in a genre. I’m an abstract impressionist with a dash of cubism; either that or rather direct, if whimsical illustration. I do all the artwork of my book covers.
 
II Argument: Art is sacred on two counts
 
II.a My BoP is that art is sacred in the secular sense, as noted. By that, I mean that art represents the best and purest mode of human communication. As the Balinese say, “We have no art. We do everything as well as we can.”[3]  This quote is the perfect foil for my argument. It does not say so much that art is the reflection of the best of human activity, but that it is a communication mode that speaks as much to the heart as it does to the mind and soul, if one considers that we each have those three receptors of communication. It is a realization of John Keats’ poetry [itself, an art], Ode on a Grecian Urn, which concludes:
 
            “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all
            Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”[4]
 
II.a.1 Thereupon turns the debate: is art “truth,” and not just beauty, and, therefore, sacred? I will demonstrate my BoP by two separate arguments from Leonardo da Vinci’s sapere vedera:  seeing well enough, and seeing deep enough. 
 
II.a.2 Some art may be judged harshly as ugly; something far from beauty. But that would contradict Leonardo da Vinci’s philosophy of sapere vedera,or, “knowing how to see.”[5] Da Vinci proposed a kind of visual literacy, which had two constructs: 1. Developing a sense of seeing well enough to be able to visualize something and draw it from memory, and 2. Developing a sense of seeing deep enough to reveal something’s essence through drawing.[6]
 
II.b. Seeing well enough to draw from memory sounds easy in the suggestion. See an apple. Now, draw it from memory. Ignoring that some of us, regretfully, could not draw the shape of an apple if they traced it in pencil on paper. First, most would try to lay the apple on the paper on its side such that the stem is away from the artist and the base of the apple closest to them. Then, trace around the apple. The result is likely a poor representation. A better method: slice the apple in half from top to bottom, just off center, and, holding it in the same orientation, take another thin slice off the larger piece, resulting in a disk-like shape; in fact, a near perfect profile of the apple. Now, trace that.
 
II.b.1 But, that’s a messy proposal. Much easier, and simultaneously more difficult from memory. Just draw the profile, an outline. Easier said than done. Now, what colors were on the apple? It is not a solid red, nor green, nor pale yellow, nor any solid saturation of any of those colors, is it? It varies from top to bottom; side to side. How did the light fall upon it to further vary the colors. Were there actual highlights, a bright spot or two where the source light falls directly on the apple at a pure perpendicular angle that is truly more white than red [or, other colors]? Did the surface on which the apple was placed reflect its own influence of color onto the apple? Were there blemishes on the skin? A worm hole? Etc., etc. Just how acute was your initial observation such that these details are firmly rooted in memory? This will take practice. Over and over and over… 
 
II.c Seeing deep enough to draw the apple’s essence is the second construct. Is the apple newly harvested, perhaps water-spotted, or dried water spots? Is it older, beginning to lose its shine, beginning to brown with rot in spots or whole sections? Is it softer in spots, rendering a subtle shadow? It is the second construct that allows art to demonstrate both beauty and truth from something even as “ugly” [in ordinary sight] as rotting, palsied, fly-infested apple skins and cores after the pressing to obtain a fine, unfiltered juice.
 
II.c.1 A Therefore, even ugliness can be appreciated as beauty and truth, and, therefore, art. One might witness the example of Oscar Wilde’s novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, a dark reversal-of-fortune tale in which the title character, a society gentleman, is, in truth, a scoundrel, and worse. In his early adulthood, he has a painting, a portrait of him done. The portrait’s allure, if one is attracted to ugliness, and magic is that while Gray’s character descends into deeper debauchery, it is his portrait that bears the results, the consequences, of his ugly character, while the person remains pristine, handsome, and youthful. It is the art that suffers, not the man.
 
II.c.2. This argument may seem to favor Con’s side; that art is profane. What can be more profane than the magic of the art bearing the burden of a man’s profane lifestyle? However, I argue that this is, rather, a confirmation of da Vinci’s sapere vedera, by the second construct that beauty, and truth, are represented in Dorian Gray’s portrait; a perfectly beautiful debauchery, if only one can see deeply enough to recognize that even in debauchery, there is an elegance to be witnessed, such as seen by Alexander Pope, whose Essay on Man said:
 
            “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
            As to be hated needs but to be seen;
            Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
            We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”[7]
 
III. Conclusion, r1
 
III.a I have demonstrated that art is sacred in a secular sense in that it represents the best of human communication to/from one’s heart, mind, and soul. It does so to the extent that we educate and train ourselves to employ da Vinci’s philosophy, sapere vedera, knowing how to see, to achieve two objectives, or constructs of either appreciating, or creating art; they being, 1. Developing a sense of seeing well enough to be able to visualize something and draw it from memory, and 2. Developing a sense of seeing deep enough to reveal something’s essence through drawing.
 
I close my r1, and extend the brush, keyboard, mallet, and pen to That1User. Please have fun.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

"Art: [as a count noun]  7. Any of various pursuits or occupations in which creative or imaginative skill is applied according to aesthetic principles in the various branches of creative activity."

For art to be sacred it must be

1)Dedicated

2)Set apart 

3)Exclusively appropriated

To some person or a special purpose

Art, being an instrument of war,  is created for the systematic purpose of advancing a struggle against an opposing force, it is one of many weapons to further a certain end, thus it is not set apart, but commonplace, as war is. Art, being a pursuit of creativity or imigination and an instrument of war cannot be exclusive to a special purpose for it is multipurposed, it is both creative/imaginative expression, and a means for another end. The purpose of art is multifaceted, thus excluding exclusivity. War, and by extension, art, is not for a special purpose for war and art is universal throughout time and culture [1] [2]. If art is an instrument of war, as Picasso claims, then it cannot be dedicated exclusively to a person for war is not a person, but a system.

As art is an instrument of war, art is also an instrument of the human mind, it is a part of a naturally occuring system that breeds creativity and imagination by its nature of exisiting. " Humans pursue creative expression and enjoy creatively produced material every day." {3} The daily pursuit and enjoyment of creation by humans makes art common.  Since art is a result of the creativity of the human mind, and the human mind is created via biochemical reactions in the brain which are governed by the physical laws of the Universe, art is ultimately created because of biological, chemical and physical reactions as everything else is in the Universe. Nothing, not even art, is created for purposes beyond reactions to natural scientific laws. Since everything in the Universe adheres to these reactions, including art, art is not set apart from anything in the Universe because it is directly tied to the Universe by being a creation of its laws, making art unsacred.

In a less scientific sense, art is a reaction of the artist to the world and the self, art is tied to the world, to expierence and feeling, even to the profane for the profane is part of the world, now I ask you, how can something sacred be in union with the profane? How can something that takes what is profane and responds to it be sacred? Art is within the world, it is a part of the world, and the world itself is profane for it is not dedicated to anyone, not set apart for anything, it is not exclusively appropriated to some person or a special purpose, the world merely exists, as does life, and since art is a response to life and the world, so too with art.

1)https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/preh/hd_preh.htm

2)https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prehistoric-carnage-site-is-evidence-of-earliest-warfare/

3)https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00019

Con misses the points of art being an instrument of war entirely. Art, being an instrument of war, cannot be dedicated, set apart, or  exclusively appropriated for a specific person or purpose for it is both used as as a means of war and creative/imaginative expression, applying skill and aesthetics to creative activity. Thus, when used an instrument of war, art cannot have an exclusive purpose for it both has a purpose in warfare and a creative purpose, something that is multipurposed cannot be set aside for one specific purpose, and thus cannot be sacred, for art attempts to achieve multiple purposes at once, one can be trying to express emotion and improve a field or aspect in their work at once. Since sacredness is definied exclusive purpose, and art is not exclusive in purpose, art is not sacred.

Art, failing to have exclusive purpose, is not exclusive to any human mind either, it is possessed by everyone, to all humans, creative potential is within us all.

This creativity is created by the biochemical processes of the brain at work,

Since art is created by the creativity of the  mind that everyone holds, and the mind is created and expressed via the biochemical reactions that cause the brain to exist, art is not sacred for the creativity used to create art exists within everyone, the biochemical reactions that allow for a creative mind happen within everyone, and something created by reactions that everyone is ultimately governed by is not sacred for it is not exclusive, these biochemical reactions that create creativity and art are not set aside for anything, not exclusive to anyone, not dedicated to any purpose, they merely arise out of natural processes, art only being an extension of these natural processes.

Source: https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/how-creativity-works-in-the-brain-report.pdf (Pg. 15,18)

I Rebuttal: Con: A white square…? No, a central point erased
 
I.a Con might have argued in his r2 rebuttal that the white square example of a circled square I presented in my r2, I.b.1 is effectively negative space, but then he must explain why the four, gray circular segments][i] represent just the profane argument of the resolution, as still in the X or Y formula, above [I.a], as the proper argument. He did not.
 
I.b Con might have argued that the white square, and the four gray circular segments, are really both white spaces. But that, again, is a separate argument, as in neither X nor Y, but Z. But, no, he did not argue this, either.
 
I.c Con argued for a central point, and erased that point. That is also the neither X nor Y, but Z argument; Z being the central point, erased. Arguing non-existence is not the point of the resolution. Con argues that “By declaring an either/or the resolution itself can be negated, for every thesis has an antithesis, by asserting either/or is true, neither can also be true.”
 
I.c.1 Sure, Con can use that strategy, but it is flawed; the logic of neither X nor Y, but Z falls outside the resolution. As the Instigator, I define the resolution. The resolution is X or Y, period. Therefore, Con is outside the parameters of the debate resolution. He might as well argue, if the resolution were, “Shakespeare was a poet,” that there never was a Shakespeare. But, does that argument meet the conditions of the resolution? No. Then it must be voted as  such: not meeting the conditions of the resolution. The resolution is: Art is secularly sacred or profane, period. Con is either held to the confines of the resolution, as stated, or he cannot win the debate. 
 
I.c.2 Logic is like that, and effectively, saying otherwise changes the conditions of the debate, the which neither of us can do and maintain the integrity readers and voters expect of a debate. Con accepted the debate as resolved, and cannot then change the resolution to suit his argument.“Z is not ignoring the white square,”  Con alleges in his r2 to conclude this section of his round, “it is questioning the existence of the square itself.”  Does the resolution question the existence of the nature of art as sacred or profane? No, it’s stated resolve is that art is either sacred or profane, and thus says it is either / or, and only either / or. Con, therefore, changes the conditions of the resolution. 
 
II Rebuttal: Con: Art is an instrument of war, repeated.
 
II.a Con’s r2 argues that as an instrument of war, “…art… cannot be dedicated, set apart, or exclusively appropriated for a specific person or purpose…”  but then proceeds to describe how it does just that: “…[art] is both used as a means of war and creative/imaginative expression, applying skill and aesthetics to creative activity.” Take note that this is a virtual quote of my definition of art [see Description, Definitions]. However, coupled with the previous quote from Con regarding exclusivity, etc., note that these words are a virtual quote from my definition of “sacred,” and not of “art” specifically. [See Description, Definitions]. But Con offers no scholastic sourcing for his declarative statement that art is not dedicated or set apart, etc. His claim is insufficient to the task. By contrast, my round 2 offered a statement by art critic, Eric Gibson, who praised Picasso’s Bull’s Head  as, “…a moment of wit and whimsy…both childlike and highly sophisticated in its simplicity, it stands as an assertion of the transforming power of human imagination…”[ii]  Transformed, I allege, to a status of sacredness.
 
III Rebuttal: Con: Art has no exclusivity of purpose
 
III.a Con’s argument declares the lack of exclusivity of purpose to art, that it is actually “…multipurposed, excluding exclusivity of purpose…”  Excluding exceptions of exchanging excursuses by excruciating excavation of holes in arguments excoriating excludable excursions of excisional nature from the exclusive resolution, the definition of exclusivity belongs to sacred, not art. Is that excrement clear?
III.b From Con’s own, exclusive source of r2,How Creativity Works in the Brain,  is the following: “According to cognitive psychologist Mark Runco, and E. Paul Torrance Professor of Creativity Studies at the University of Georgia, the arts are inherently creative because they exist for the purpose of exploring originality or the attributes of the self. Other participants observed that while artists can be said to aspire to creativity as a rule, the novelty of the outcome is not guaranteed—nor always valued. Still, the unambiguously creative intent of most artists presents what William Casebeer, a research manager for Lockheed Martin’s Human Systems Optimization Laboratory, called a target for neuroscientific researchers. Such researchers might conclude, in Casebeer’s words: 
“‘Hey, we’ve identified this aha moment . . . Here’s what looks like behavior [leading to creativity]. Here’s the role that it plays in the ontogeny of the creative process.’ And then we can say, ‘Okay. Let’s find that neural signature, understand its dynamics, and explore its connectivity with these other brain regions that we know are affiliated with behavior.’”[iii]  But, is it derived from “…creativity which everyone possesses,” as Con alleges.  Too bad Con did not source that allegation; it does not specify this opinion in Con’s source. In fact, that source admits that, “…hundreds of millions of dollars… are pouring into large-scale efforts to… improve our understanding and manipulation of the human brain.”[iv]  If everyone had creativity, would this effort be necessary? The point taken is that the aha moment is not the experience everyone has.
III.c  On the contrary, I offer the following:  “The truth is that creative people are different from other people – special, for better or worse, in a way that we’re only beginning to understand. And everything we know about them suggests that they’re creative because they’re different, not that they’re different because they’re creative. It’s a vital distinction. Believing that everyone has the capacity to be just as creative as the next person is as ludicrous as believing that everyone has the capacity to be just as intelligent as the next person, yet it has become almost universally accepted as a truism. It’s also relatively new, taking root in only the last 30 or 40 years, coinciding much too precisely to be accidental with the popularization of creativity as an essential ingredient of social and business success.”[v]
 
III.c.1 Far from being exclusive of purpose, as Con argues, and because not everyone is creative, regardless of Con’s allegation, art sustains a wide variety of purposes. As the Balinese suggest, and which Con has not rebutted, “We have no art; we do everything as well as we can.”[vi]  But, that’s just the Balinese. Has anyone else made that claim? Is that exclusivity sufficient for everyone?
 
IV Rebuttal: “Art as/is not Scared”
 
IV.a Con’s argument t that art “…is multipurposed, excluding exclusivity of purpose,”  does not qualify either its sacredness, nor lack of same. The qualification of “sacred” in the secular sense I defined [see Description/Definitions] rests in its dedicated setting apart [from things that are ordinary and mundane], exclusively appropriated to some person or some special purpose. I used as exemplary the Bull’s Headsculpture by Picasso, of which a critic I quoted above, II.a, and in r2, observed its being set apart, “…a moment of wit and whimsy…both childlike and highly sophisticated in its simplicity”  and appropriated to special purpose, “…it stands as an assertion of the transforming power of human imagination.”  Thus, by applying the terms of my “sacred” definition, Mr. Gibson has appropriately called the piece sacred, in a secular sense. I allege that in like manner, such artwork as Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony,Picasso’s Guernica,Shakespeare’s Hamlet,and Michaelangelo’s Pièta,qualify the designation: sacred in a secular sense.
 
V. Conclusion: Art is Sacred in a Secular Sense
 
V.a I declare I have met the BoP of  the Pro side of the resolution: art is secularly sacred, by the evidence contributed by sourcing of declarative statements, first by Leonardo da Vinci’s sapere vedera, and its two factors: Seeing well enough to draw from memory, and seeing deep enough to draw an object’s essence. Of course, da Vinci spoke of drawing. The same applies to creation of music, sculpture, writing, and other modes of artistic aesthetic as I have demonstrated by the list below.
 
V.a.1 I demonstrated by example Picasso’s Bull’s Head and Guernica,  Keats’ Ode on a Grecian Urn,  Pope’s “Essay on Man,”  the declaration by the Balinese, by reference to Beethoven, Shakespeare, and Michelangelo, and even by Con’s reference to the MET and its exhibits of ancient art, that art meets the resolution’s proposal of being sacred in a secular sense.
 
V.a.2 I have successfully rebutted Con’s attempt to re-define the resolution as being open-ended, even capable of being re-defined, by my logic formulae as presented in r1, r2, and r3. I ask for your vote for Pro. Thank you.