Untitled document - Google Docs

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Think of two people - one wealthy, one underprivileged.

Do you think it's possible


to know which one of these has a greater artistic potential? you can't, because
determining a person's artistic potential and creative ability on the basis of the
weight of their wallet is impossible. Art and creativity depend on originality,
imagination and ingenuity.

i am fatima z rahman and i stand firmly against the motion

Traditionally, society has ignored the voices and opinions of people from poorer
backgrounds and their narratives have been largely ignored and excluded from
discourse. Marginalised narratives such as those of people who live in slums, of
children working as ragpickers and of those who work a 16-17 hour shift for a
small wage are brought to the forefront through creative expression. Whether it
was painter Claude Monet in the 1880s or Dalit art today, art and creativity have
been used as a powerful tool by those living in poverty not only to highlight their
experiences, but also as a symbol of resistance against the suffering and
inequality they face on a daily basis.

In contrast to artistic fields, pursuing a career in a technical or scientific field is


impossible without having formal education, as you cannot become a doctor
without a degree. However, creating art does not necessarily require training, and
is rather something that can be achieved by hard work, original thinking and
perseverance. I am sure the proposition will come up here and say that art
requires skill development and I agree, but these skills don’t need to be
developed in an expensive three-four years at university.

An example to support the fact that art is for all, are our very own indigenous art
forms, which have provided many poor communities their source of earning. Art
forms like Madhubani, Chikankari and block printing have existed for centuries
and have in fact sustained the livelihoods of entire communities for millenia

Just like how you don’t need spotify premium to experience music, you don’t
require a hefty bank balance and a huge mansion to experience art. Art is all
around us and the very beauty of art is that it is subjective. You don’t need to go
to an art gallery or a museum to consume art. Saying that the only way to
consume artistic media is by buying a million dollar painting isn’t just incorrect but
it completely goes against the idea of art.

To conclude, all I'd like to say is that art is a form of self expression. Expression of
thoughts, opinions and ideas, and is a fundamental right that is guaranteed to
every single one of use by the constitution. Just because a person is poor, do
they not deserve to express their feelings and emotions? I leave it to the house to
decide

Refutation -

● Team proposition has continually pointed out that privileged individuals


have a higher exposure to different art forms and are bound to be good
artists, but this point does not stand because art is always present in our
surroundings, whether it’s in the form of music playing on the radio, a
mural on a wall, the clothing styles of different people on the road are all
art and a person irrespective of their economic background is always
consuming art

● Another point that has been brought up is the fact that studying art at a
higher education institution is expensive and that poorer people cannot
afford it, but as i mentioned in my speech earlier and i do again, is that it is
not absolutely necessary to have a degree in art to be a professional artist.
One can develop their skills through hard work and perseverance and if
required, shorter course

You might also like