Master Debaters

Last Tuesday, during the Art Week events, four Art professors (the Master Debaters) gathered for a throwdown via debate. Professor Calwell, Professor Lucchesi, Professor Sheer and Professer Friebele worked independently, in teams and against each other to debate questions about art and its place and purpose in society. There were four rounds: 2 rounds of 1-on-1 debating, 1 round of tag team debating and a deathmatch round to end the throwdown with a decorated Master Debater. Each round consisted of 2 minutes for each debater's opening statement, 2 minutes each for a rebuttal, and 1 minute each for a closing remark. At the end of the event, Professor Sheer was Lucchesi was decorated with a medal as this year's Master Debator.

For the second 1-on-1 round of debating, Professor Caldwell and Professor Lucchesi debated about whether gun or art were the stronger force in society. Professor Lucchesi spoke first and argued that art is the stronger of the two. As the last frontier of imagination and creativity, art is and must be stronger than guns--its message is more powerful because it is the only outlet for these strong human forces. Professor Lucchesi also argued that art is infinite because it lives on after the artist, thus giving great power to any artist whose art remains after him. Professor Caldwell then opened his argument of guns as stronger than art by pointing out that the reality of capitalism and the marketplace (which were brought up in the first 1-on-1 round of debating between Professor Sheer and Professor Friebele) drives society. As guns have become a means of gaining and controlling the forces of capitalism and the marketplace, Professor Caldwell opened his argument by mentioning the devastating effects of guns on society, slightly widening the scope of the definition to include weapons of mass destruction. He argued that weapons create art--they inspire artistic reactions to their conflicts and impact on society. The "aesthetic of power" is what guns create and what art seeks to represent, thus placing guns (and weapons) as the cause of art's inspiration. In an interesting and coincidental rebuttal, Professor Lucchesi used visiting artist Karley Klopfenstein's work as an example of how the power of art exceeds the power of guns and weapons and allows the viewer (and the artist) to re-imagine weapons through art. Through art, people can see the effect of weapons in a different light and this enlightenment, Professor Lucchesi argued, is more powerful than the weapons themselves. To end the debate, Professor Caldwell used the fact that the budget (which comes from taxes) for defense (guns) is greater than the budget for art education. Using this, Professor Caldwell argued that society, which votes representatives who set tax rates and allocate money, values guns and protection more than the "touchy feely" expression art education provides. He said, "We have put our money where our mouth is, not where our heart is," revealing that he budget reflects the practical more vocal needs of society (protection) rather than the emotional needs (art).

I'm a pretty big cynic. Additionally, I don't have too much faith in humanity, especially Americans. I have to admit, Professor Caldwell's arguments spoke to me and I thought his ending quote was very effective. I think that it would be nice to think that art is more powerful than the crass concerns of weapons and protection. However, I think we would be lying to ourselves if this is what we truly saw as reality. No war is fought over art but over money, land and ideology. These are the strongest things and the battles for them are fought with guns. Art is certainly powerful but I just don't think that humanity regards it high enough or is even fully capable of becoming enlightened enough by art to change its ways and stop fighting. Because of that, I don't think it will ever be a stronger force than guns and the endless need to be more prepared and better protected than your neighbor. Bleak, I know, but I am not going to hide myself from the truth I can see.