[Debate]#Main: The Debate thread

[MnM]

The Debate thread

On going: Driverless cars: Boon or bane?

I myself will host a debate

Rules:
1) Any topic on day to day life will be discussed here. Science and technology/politics/art/anything debatable!

2) Please stay on topic.

3) The contents should be bound by the forum rules. >>Rules<<

Debate 1, Traditional vs Digital art (Click to View)

Okay seems like a long time since we had a nice debate. Here is a topic which I wanted to discuss for a while now.

Digital art VS Tradition art

So, there is no doubt that both the art forms have certain pros and cons. So I hope not to discuss about that, But! however I would like  if you people can throw light on/ debate How these pros and cons affect your drawing skills.

Hoping that few of you might have already experienced this difference while switching between digital and traditional works, there is no undo in traditional works. You have to only erase off your mistakes, whereas digitally you can undo million times to get a perfect stroke. So, what I felt is, isn't this a cheap trick? Of course the advantage of digital painting is that your work is fast, business point of view you can make more copies of your work etc etc., But has art lost its meaning? Our ancestors had pain in the a** doing such masterpieces while we getaway with most of the difficulties by pressing couple of key-combinations?

So yeah! What's your view?

Debate 2, Democracy vs Dictatorship (Click to View)

Debate 2: Democracy vs Dictatorship

"Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary"- source: wikipedia

Dictatorship is a form of government where a country is ruled by one person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity's power remains strong - source: wikipedia


Democracy is the most prevalent form of government all over the world. People prefer democracy to dictatorship, simply because of the freedom/rights that they are able to enjoy which is absent in dictatorship.

But people can be easily deluded by the thought of democracy/dictatorship. Sometimes dictatorship can be more effective than democracy in certain aspects. Dictatorship is not necessarily tyranny.

I will leave it to you guys to discuss about the kind of governance your country adapts, how it affects the growth of your country and which form of government you prefer?

conclusion:

This sums up the whole discussion. Even though mini-groups exist forming a larger group of people, the demands of each individual group cannot be fulfilled. Although not all the group might be well educated, this creates a whole different problem resulting in a mob movement. And people are not willing to involve themselves and practice democracy. We can as a result in my country at least suddenly newer groups emerge from no-where. Recently LGBT marriage was made legal in America, suddenly I am able to see there are many LGBT groups popping up all over the country. US government satisfied their need and so they are demanding our government to make it legal. Such is the situation right now. People are so selfish and when they want their needs to be satisfied they utilize the freedom of speech and right to express themselves as a weapon. Democracy wants active participation of the citizens. This doesn't mean creating a group and being idle, When a newly imposed law contradicts their theory, protest.Rather sit and come to conclusion.

It is much more clear now that these voicing rights are completely absent in any other form of government! Aristocracy and oligarchy might have a group of people different sectors, but what if these different sectors are from same religion. As far as I know, a king and their ministers are from same community/religion.

Ultimately the conclusion could be that there is no perfect form of government(that we know of already). The whole thing boils down to active participation of citizens in a decent and non-idiotic ways with advice from the professionals. Democracy is inevitable in recent years. While strict and stringent laws can make good citizens, it cannot spoil the interest of individuals/strip-off their rights.

[STM1993]

I like being able to hold a real life pencil/brush because its a lot easier to change the intensity/thickness of a stroke halfway through. Can't really do that digitally without requiring multiple steps, at least not with current technology as far as I can tell. However it also means that I'd be more prone to mistakes and it relies heavily on my own ability to make the perfect stroke, and this is amplified by not having an easy Ctrl+Z or a precise pixel-by-pixel correction. There's the texture of traditional art that I feel is not easily captured digitally; you can almost always tell one from the other, but in any case it creates two distinct styles.

I don't feel doing things digitally is considered cheating at all. All that means is that there is now a new way to make art or even a means to enhance a piece of art that would otherwise feel incomplete. Its like saying we should abandon the use of calculators because our ancestors painstakingly used an abacus to do math, or expecting a photographer to take the perfect picture using an old camera with the environment acting against him when he would no longer need to worry about that with new equipment.

[Gespenst]

Learn traditional, master the mouse

I like this quote, it was said by a great person.

You stated cons and pros Me'n'Mine

I like tradition way better because it actualy shows my true skills, technique. How I handle details and stuff. How I actualy draw without using filters, editing and stuff.

To me, digital art is just replacement of equipment i.e. paper and pencil.
After all, everyone likes traditional art. Check animation studios, galleries.
Can you see printed portrait? You wont, you will be seeing a re-printed or photography but no digital artwork.

---

Correct me if I am wrong

[Hate]

Am no expert but a wise man once said: "Art is not an art until someone say it is" ,people are free to express them selfs the way their pleased ..even throught degital painting is easier some people still consider it hard and complecated asf comparing to Traditional ways..

[empirefantasy]

both arts has their own characteristic. i.e. a portrait is commonly related to traditional, while something abstract with a lot of precise straight lines and circles or other curves kinda modern art can be done easily with computer.
from my experience it is a difficult to draw with mouse comparing to pencil. these new technologies with touch screens are cutting off mouse problem, anyways I haven't tried any of them yet. while in the other side volume work can be done easily with digital devices (massive paint let's say or a table, a square, etc)
And about erasing, I think it depends a lot. you can really undo so much things but just undo, and then start from where you let it in digital. While when drawing only with pencil you can easily erase what you want, in photoshop let's say u need to select a proper eraser with size and shape and then do and redu several times coz your hand may go into an undesired direction and make a small mistake. While a true eraser/rubber and pencil can be switched and controlled very easy. When it come in painting there are specific chemical which can delete image and this makes is very ineffective.

anyways both arts can produce miracles.

[MnM]

I don't know how well I am going to play the role of moderating this debate. Here and there I would like to make some point as well.

I like being able to hold a real life pencil/brush because its a lot easier to change the intensity/thickness of a stroke halfway through.

I guess that can be easily done, pressure can be changed mid way. Thus digital painting is more technically advanced than traditional counterparts. That makes it superior form of media.

However it also means that I'd be more prone to mistakes and it relies heavily on my own ability to make the perfect stroke, and this is amplified by not having an easy Ctrl+Z or a precise pixel-by-pixel correction. There's the texture of traditional art that I feel is not easily captured digitally; you can almost always tell one from the other, but in any case it creates two distinct styles.

That is my whole point there. So lets take an example of myself . I am not a professional artist, but after completing my whole painting (which are mostly portraits) , I realize few mistakes eg. The nose is a bit long, the ears are misplaced while I must have made sure of those placements in the basic sketch itself. Now I become lethargic and after completing the whole piece, I just go crop and make the adjustment to make it look perfect/ close to perfect. I always bear this guilt inside of me. While this is not at all possible in traditional work. Nada.

I don't feel doing things digitally is considered cheating at all. All that means is that there is now a new way to make art or even a means to enhance a piece of art that would otherwise feel incomplete.

I didn't mean that digital artworks are cheating. I just said that is it a cheap trick? Traditionally you get more experience. But as technologies advance, there is no harm in trying them out. I don't have to carry pencil , paper and other materials wherever I go now but still able to do some paintings. That given, everyone needs to be trained traditionally first to understand the technical difficulty or understand what it really takes to do a traditional piece. It's more like an experience. As days go by I am afraid traditional medias will no longer survive!

Learn traditional, master the mouse

I like this quote, it was said by a great person.

You stated cons and pros Me'n'Mine

I agree with your quote mono. Traditional is a must learn. But I stated pros and cons to give you some lead on what to discuss. That's how you start a debate. Can't make ghee without butter.

both arts has their own characteristic. i.e. a portrait is commonly related to traditional, while something abstract with a lot of precise straight lines and circles or other curves kinda modern art can be done easily with computer.

Just to clarify here, traditional abstract paintings are much valued and are more common form of artworks!

And about erasing, I think it depends a lot. you can really undo so much things but just undo, and then start from where you let it in digital. While when drawing only with pencil you can easily erase what you want, in photoshop let's say u need to select a proper eraser with size and shape and then do and redu several times coz your hand may go into an undesired direction and make a small mistake. While a true eraser/rubber and pencil can be switched and controlled very easy.

Not just pencils. Take for example oil paint/water color . Once you paint it stays for ever. Make a mistake it's clearly visible. Corel painter simulates all these very effectively but still there is an undo option. This gives them an escape route. While doing traditionally you have to sit and carefully make a stroke. Think of the amount of patience and concentration you need to have.

[MnM]

Debate 2: Democracy vs Dictatorship

"Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary"- source: wikipedia

Dictatorship is a form of government where a country is ruled by one person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity's power remains strong - source: wikipedia


Democracy is the most prevalent form of government all over the world. People prefer democracy to dictatorship, simply because of the freedom/rights that they are able to enjoy which is absent in dictatorship.

But people can be easily deluded by the thought of democracy/dictatorship. Sometimes dictatorship can be more effective than democracy in certain aspects. Dictatorship is not necessarily tyranny.

I will leave it to you guys to discuss about the kind of governance your country adapts, how it affects the growth of your country and which form of government you prefer?

People can inbox me the topics you wish to discuss to me

Moderators could you please move this thread to general discussion?

Silverthorn edited this post 12-07-2015 06:54 PM because:

Thread moved to General Discussion on Me-N-Mine's request. -- STM1993 Actually, the Philosophy-forum is the ideal place for this kind of discussion

[MangaD]

Here is an interesting view from Aristotle:



And here Plato's 5 regimes from best to worst:



Dictatorship is a bit generic I'd say. While democracy is not the best form of government - never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Let's be realistic, how can the people vote to choose their government when they understand nothing of politics and are full of misconceptions? Besides, the interest of the few overlap the interest of the whole, so each individual will root for the politics that better suit him, not necessarily being the best politics for the whole. Democracy brings serious instability.

The democracy we currently have is questionable however. Can you trust what you hear on the TV? Can you trust the history books? How do you know this so called democracy is nothing but a phony to manipulate the masses? Looks more like oligarchy pulling the strings behind the curtain to me.

However, solving this matter is not that simple. A dictatorship can take many forms. If it is a government formed of the best of the best (academically speaking), it could work well. But then oligarchy and corruption are a thing, and money could end up ruling the nation by manipulating who will succeed in the government.

This is where monarchy comes in. Because choosing the best of the best can mean choosing the richest at some point, letting the interests of the nation in 2nd plan. In a monarchy where the king has the last word, he can handpick his government, making sure they are the best and controlling their decisions. The power of the money shouldn't affect the king, as he is above the money. However, the flaw here is clearly visible too. Should the king be an idiot, tyranny takes place.

So, is there a perfect form of government at all?

[STM1993]

Here is an interesting view from Aristotle:


...
So, is there a perfect form of government at all?

Probably not in practice. How do you rise in power? By being related with those who have the means to put you in power, but in return, you generally become obligated to help out those same people else they could also put you out of power - the same way you tend to want to help your friends. No one would give you power if they don't know who you are, and you'd call someone a snitch if he told on you and never trust him again(hence, bad idea to be a whistleblower). In other words, corruption is inherent, primarily because an imperfect knowledge of candidates exists, resulting in a need to build relationships with those with power to put you in the spotlight, and in turn strings get attached. For this reason, I believe that there is ultimately no real difference what government system is being used - everything is a form of oligarchy, possibly even a plutocracy given how important money is.

That said, I think a democracy(at least outwardly, the real answer is always somewhere in-between) is the least of the evils in the age of the internet, if only because it most easily pacifies the masses from revolting etc. When a leader is elected, the masses can't exactly complain because that's what everyone else voted and it happens a predictable every X years. In other systems, they could easily say that they had no control over who they wanted to lead them, especially if there were changes to the system used to select leaders. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the masses can be easily manipulated by media and that the people who picked the candidates to choose from have the real power, but this is a very powerful illusion nevertheless.

[MnM]

I will have to disagree with plato's hierarchy. Even you will have to disagree with that since you have stated that "Should the king be an idiot, tyranny takes place."

Let's be realistic, how can the people vote to choose their government when they understand nothing of politics and are full of misconceptions? Besides, the interest of the few overlap the interest of the whole, so each individual will root for the politics that better suit him, not necessarily being the best politics for the whole. Democracy brings serious instability.

So are you trying to imply that Democracy is highly unstable and Aristocracy/monarchy is a better form when formed by educated minds/mind?

People mostly root to certain political party depending upon the election campaign/ track records(not many look into it though!) but then again the political party they root to, would have slipped in certain aspects! So we cannot entirely say that people ignorant about the election and voting system. I think STM pretty much makes the same point. It comes with the strings attached.

Looks more like oligarchy pulling the strings behind the curtain to me.

Oligarchy, I don't think it's possible. If one party tries to over power, there are other parties who can combine and form a even more destructive force and over throw them.

So, is there a perfect form of government at all? Thinking

There isn't. that's a fact. But we don't have in-depth knowledge of the functioning, even then which two governments would you combine so that you think that it's an acceptable form of government?

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the masses can be easily manipulated by media and that the people who picked the candidates to choose from have the real power, but this is a very powerful illusion nevertheless.

Hypothetically speaking if at all a good leader/politician wants to rise in power, he definitely needs to strongly advertise his ideologies/words. So, if people believe that all the advertisement are with a hidden meaning and fail to see a good politician then there is a big problem. And I think we are still under these kind of illusion! I have to strongly agree upon this point!

But,

In other words, corruption is inherent, primarily because an imperfect knowledge of candidates exists, resulting in a need to build relationships with those with power to put you in the spotlight, and in turn strings get attached

How else do you think this hypothetical candidate can spread his thoughts without making a name for himself or get to spotlight?

Also @STM93 : So it seems you agree with most of the operating principles of democracy and still there are certain loop holes? How do you think a democratic government tackle that?