We have a debate tomorrow on this topic, "art is a man-made object demanding to be experienced aesthetically"

Question

how will i defend this topic, and what questions can i ask to our opponent that opposes this idea or this definition of an art.

Answer 1

Let's break this down:

Art is man-made.  True.  There are beauties and emotional triggers in nature but it is generally accepted that "art" as a form of expression must come from man.  There are examples of monkeys and even elephants that can hold a paint brush and slap paint onto a canvas, but "art" is an expression of emotion or a representation of natural surroundings and therefore must come from man if it is to be appreciated by man.  It is a communication.

As far as "demanding" to be experienced asthetically.  I think demanding is the wrong word, but I can understand it's usage here.  When you experience a work of art, it is easy to experience it asthetically.  It allows the observer the possiblility of asthetic experience, but rarely demands it (in the common use of the word).  Perhaps it is better said that art, to be UNDERSTOOD, demands that it be experienced asthetically.  Much art is not understood by those who do not grasp the asthetic, by choice or by the inability to reach for the asthetic.

Your common objections are going to be from someone tossing out examples of misunderstood art or fringe art that cannot be experienced without the suspension of commonly held notions or morals.  They miss the point of art completely and prefer to judge and catagorize rather than experience and appreciate.

You don't have to like something to understand why others do, but it takes emotional courage that many voluntarily lack.