“Gene-Editing, Nuclear Energy, Art…Oh My!”: Analyzing More of the Texas 1st Semester Topics.
We’re back again with another batch of the Texas topics! In this article we’ll be covering the following:
This house believes that gene-editing technology should be restricted to non-human organisms by Jon-Carlo Canezo
This House supports the increased use of nuclear power to combat climate change by Jenn Melin
This House regrets the commodification of art by Isolda Vela
If you’d like to suggest motions for us to analyze (especially if you’re outside of Texas) please do so at the submission box located at the top of the Blog page. Don’t forget to follow us on Instagram to get more updates on future topic analyses @worldofwordsinstitute
This house believes that gene-editing technology should be restricted to non-human organisms
Context
There’s quite a few interesting and important things to define and denote for this motion.
First, because it’s a “believes” motion, we should note that the discussions should focus more on principled arguments; these types of arguments are non-consequential and rooted in more ethical, moral, logical, and/or philosophical concepts. They are also a priori questions, those that should be answered first. Principled arguments can, and in the case of this motion will likely, also be descriptors or definitions of certain concepts.
Contrasted to principle arguments are practical arguments, which are rooted more in a consequentialist framework and should support the principled arguments in this debate.
An example for this motion on the principle and practical could be:
Principledly, the field of medicine has an obligation to try to help those who are sick with modern technology because of the hippocratic oath[1].
Practically, gene editing technology could improve the quality of life for individual humans with cardiovascular diseases[2].
We can see how they differ. This principle argument calls for us to do something based on a duty or obligation that people might have. This practical argument talks about the outcomes of implementing gene editing technology in a specific way.
Secondly, gene editing technology is a very broad term and is also known as genome editing, or the specific genome editing mechanisms such as CRISPR-Cas9 (aka CRISPR, Crisper, Cas9), ZFNs or TALENs[2]. That is to say, if we would like to not have to do a deep dive into this advanced scientific field, it might behoove us to talk about the concepts more broadly and think less about the specifications of the technology itself and speak more about its usage and implications for the future.
In addition to that, though gene editing is a more recent technological breakthrough[3], the idea of “fixing” genetics (think the dangerous and unscientific idea of eugenics) and curing genetic/DNA based diseases has long since been around (treatments like radiation therapy and chemotherapy). There have been many controversial scientific medical breakthroughs in the past and it might be beneficial to analogously talk about them as well; like the usage of fetal cells in medicine. All of this to say that there are a lot of good, past and historic examples to talk about regarding this motion so don’t feel like you need to be an expert on gene editing technology for a singular motion.
Lastly, to synthesize this information and to wrap up this section, the core question is asking us about the ethical quandaries posed by gene editing technology. There is a surprisingly large amount of questions and it is up to us to tackle all, some or none of them in a way that we see fit. Do we have an obligation to use any type of medicine to cure diseases, even if they’re controversial? What should we categorize as diseases that we can use gene editing technology to cure? What about some genetic linked disorders or abnormalities; i.e. autism, down syndrome, deafness, should we “cure” those? Or even some epigenetic linked traits like homosexuality or queerness in general? It is important to note that while DNA and genetics play a role in people developing certain traits, diseases, or disorders, it is not guaranteed to happen, nor do we know in all cases what the gene is, if they even are expressed, or if we can edit them[4]. And finally, considering that this is a more preventative motion, what does the future hold in regards to gene editing? Can and should we perform gene editing to make kids have a higher likelihood of having certain “desirable” traits? These questions and more are things to keep in mind when writing cases and taking positions in rounds.
Sidenote: we should strongly urge students and coaches when talking about this motion, especially in round, to be mindful about the diction that we use regarding the differences between genetic diseases, genetic disorders, and genetic traits. We should neither conflate nor link one unfairly to another. We should speak with an open heart and mind and learn about the differences.
Proposition
Team governance has a lot to overcome - they must be able to fight against the very tangible benefits of gene editing technology in the status quo, where they have been used to cure life-threatening diseases. That’s a tall order of magnitude when levied against the future potential of it being abused for negative outcomes. The National Human Genome Research Institute or the NHGRI’s four main ethical questions are a good place to start:
Is it okay to use gene therapy on an embryo when it is impossible to get permission from the embryo for treatment? Is getting permission from the parents enough?
What if gene therapies are too expensive and only wealthy people can access and afford them? That could worsen existing health inequalities between the rich and poor.
Will some people use genome editing for traits not important for health, such as athletic ability or height? Is that okay?
Should scientists ever be able to edit germline cells? Edits in the germline would be passed down through generations.
While seemingly the proposition might look unfavored (i.e. how do we push back against curing diseases in people, and potentially as a cure for cancer?), it’s not a tall order if we’re smart about the principle and the wording of the motion. The first question posed by the NHGRI is a strong principle, the concept of consenting to medical procedures before one is born can be a good starting point for arguments. If we were to go this route, we’d need to explain the concept of consent and autonomy thoroughly.
The second is the wording of the motion - non-human organisms. Currently, there are plans to use CRISPR to help create COVID-19 vaccines and this kind of technology falls on the proposition side of the house[5]. We can continue to use gene editing to create medicine, but not use it directly on humans.
There’s a few more things to consider; like is it okay for humans to “play god” by editing genetic makeup? The ethical considerations of humans deciding what is best for their infants regarding their genetic makeup and traits is something to be concerned about.
In the same vein, editing germline cells would see unknown repercussions or could lead to some effects like DNA diversity loss. Cosmetic changes to children to obtain “desirable” traits feels very dangerously eugenics adjacent. These are questions that should be considered and the strategy could be to talk about the most reasonable or likely things that could happen - which is that like some other medical advances, it could be abused for just beauty or aesthetics. Taking a firm stance and explaining how and why would likely be a winning strategy.
Opposition
The benefits of gene editing technology are vast - the endless possibilities of eradicating disease and disorders like cancer, heart diseases and other lifelong ailments directly in humans is no small feat. The opposition ground is rooted in the practical, where the benefits can be seen and felt; however it should not be viewed only in a utility framework. The ethical obligations that we have to try to save human lives are just as strong of an argument as any of the aforementioned practical benefits. The advancements of medical technology have led to numerous breakthroughs, like the prolongment of the average life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates.
Due to the uncertain nature of the future and the obligation that the motion puts to talk about the potential positives and negatives, there is still good ground to talk about how the benefits would outweigh the harms. A permanent, potentially painless cure for human diseases that have plagued humanity like cancer can alter the trajectory of human existence. These benefits should not be understated, the ability to quickly employ all tactics for future problems like the next potential world wide pandemic to save untold lives is a large benefit that could be closed off if we were to propose this motion.
When dealing with the proposition stances regarding the ethical nature of editing genes for more superfluous reasons, we have two options: outweigh or to lean in. Outweighing is pretty easy and self-explanatory; the relatively few people who might abuse this technology to alter their children’s appearances versus the large swaths of people whose cancer could be cured is a large gap to cover.
Leaning in, though admittedly a more difficult stance to take, could look like accepting the premise that yes, people could use gene editing technology to change their cosmetic appearances, but just like how plastic surgery is more affordable and wide spread, there aren’t vast amounts of people looking to get plastic surgery constantly to drastically change their body. Moreover, why is it bad to let people feel better about themselves? If elective surgery isn’t explicitly banned or restricted, gene editing technology for the same use shouldn't either because they achieve the same goals. Banning people from making autonomous choices that aren’t harmful to themselves or others is principledly unsound.
Conclusion
At first glance the motion seems a bit one sided. It’s hard to imagine what the future could hold for gene editing technology - though we can think of and talk about the likely and unlikely scenarios that could happen. Perhaps the misnomer of gene editing is partially to blame, the concept of being able to change an embryo’s DNA to make them have certain traits or not evokes feelings of dystopian science fiction novels like A Brave New World and genetic engineering but that wouldn’t be the only or even predominate usage of this technology. As we dive into it; there is good ground for either side to take and could have independent access to the ballots if teams are smart and strategic. Gene editing is happening and is going to continue to rise in usage with what we hope is an ethical approach.
If we go into rounds with a specific plan and strategy, we should be able to pick up a ballot regardless of the sides that we are debating in rounds.
Citations
[1] The Hippocratic Oath and Modern Society and Medicine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6482690/
[2] Applications of Genome Editing Technology in the Targeted Therapy of Human Diseases
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-019-0089-y
[3] What is Genome Editing and the Ethical Questions Posed by it?
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/what-is-Genome-Editing
[4] Epigenetics and Human Sexuality
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/18/gay-gene-epigenetics-evolution-sexual-orientation
[5] Gene Editing and its Application to Viral Infections and Diseases
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2022.869889/full
Further Reading
CRISPR and a History of its Discovery and Ethical Considerations: https://tinyurl.com/rrucjcrr
What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?: https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns
Jon-Carlo Canezo is the head coach at St. John's School as well as a consultant with CASE Debates. He's been an active participant in the debate community for 10 years now.
This House supports the increased use of nuclear power to combat climate change.
Setting up the debate
Climate Change
The Motion asks a timely question about how to shift our energy production away from fossil fuels in order to curb climate change. The issue of climate change has reached a boiling point in our discourse. Our summer was consumed with headlines like, “It’s Official: July is the hottest month recorded…ever”. We had the hottest August on record as well. As I’m writing this, it’s late September, and temperatures in DFW are routinely in the high 90s with forecasts of 99 and 100 this weekend. That something has changed is undeniable.
Climate protests have become part of our everyday. From student-led climate strikes, to attacks on the world’s most precious artwork, to the stopping of traffic and major sporting events; it’s difficult to deny that the degree to which people will go to inspire action in their leaders on this issue has escalated.
As countries around the world deal with the ramifications of our changing climate and strive to meet their emissions benchmarks set out in the Paris Climate accord, the discussion around how to generate electricity in a carbon neutral way becomes an increasingly hot button political debate. Our own country has been notoriously slow to act on climate change. Even as attempts to politicize the issue continued, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which made the largest investment in climate and energy in American history.
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power was originally a very American, almost patriotic ideal. Coming out of World War II, Americans were proud of their ability to harness the power of the atom to win wars and generate electricity. As the film Oppenheimer taught us all this summer, nuclear fission releases a tremendous amount of energy. When it comes to generating electricity, this makes it incredibly efficient.
The Cold War changed thoughts around nuclear bombs, and eventually those negative sentiments started to seep into the discourse around nuclear power. Nuclear power’s public relations were further harmed by expensive and long build times, legitimate concerns about waste, and major accidents. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima all contributed to a growing movement away from nuclear energy.
In pop culture, nuclear power became a villain. It gave us Godzilla. It gave us the hit HBO series Chernobyl. Even when it gave Homer Simpson a giant donut there was something strange and wrong about it.
These sentiments have gone global. Europe was once a huge adopter of nuclear power, but a growing anti-nuclear movement has led countries like Germany, Spain, and Switzerland to plan nuclear phase-outs by 2030. The biggest fears continue to revolve around nuclear disasters and waste. Fears limiting the use of nuclear power are an obstacle proponents will have to overcome if they wish to use nuclear power to combat climate change.
Notably, even as some countries move away from nuclear power, there is growing support for it for the first time in decades. A Pew Research study released in August shows that 57% favor more nuclear power plants. That’s an increase from 43% in 2020. The reigning Miss America, Grace Stanke, is a nuclear engineering student and huge proponent of nuclear power. Elon Musk has famously called himself a believer. The head of Open AI, Sam Altman, believes that nuclear energy is necessary to address climate change and handle the increased energy needs of an increasingly technological society. Last year acclaimed film director Oliver Stone released the documentary “Nuclear Now” which explores the potential of nuclear power to meet our clean energy needs. Numerous startups are pursuing smaller and more efficient reactor designs including ones funded by Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook, and Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft. Several countries that were either planning phaseouts or opposed to opening nuclear plants at all have reversed that course including the Philippines, South Korea, Greece, Sweden, and Belgium.
Framing
This sets up a debate wherein the Proposition must convince the audience that this rise in popular opinion is what we should pin the hopes of future generations on. The villain is actually the hero, or at least a convenient ally against a more daunting villain. The Opposition’s job is to prove that nuclear power is actually still the bad guy.
This is not a principled debate. The motion asks a very practical question with tremendous real world implications. Both sides should agree that there is a need to move away from fossil fuels. The question is how. Oppositions should strategically craft a counter-model. Not doing so leaves the Opp open to Prop making arguments that are akin to any shift away from fossil fuels is good, sort of a "try or die” type collapse. You don’t want to be in a climate debate and be perceived as the side who chooses to do nothing. Additionally, a counter-model really does a lot to enhance the debate by giving stable points of comparison. In the academic literature, this debate is a comparison between nuclear and other low carbon renewables like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. The Prop should think about how their offense stacks up against these alternatives.
The existential threat of climate change will loom over the entire debate, and frames the discourse. Both sides attempt to mitigate climate change while addressing the energy needs of a growing population reliant on more and more technology. The burdens should focus on the efficacy of the solution- both at solving the climate crisis and leaving the world inhabitable for current and future generations. I think the framing can be short and simple. The terms of the debate are fairly clear.
Proposition
Efficiency
One of the strongest arguments for why we should invest more in nuclear energy is its strength as an efficient power source. Nuclear fission is 8,000 times more efficient at creating energy than traditional fossil fuels. Nuclear is also a low waste option as it requires less raw material, uranium, to produce a significant amount of energy, and it does so with zero emissions from the actual energy production. There is still an ancillary carbon cost associated with building plants and mining the raw materials, but no current energy production is completely carbon free when accounting for these factors. It is by far the most efficient energy production mechanism we have in the status quo.
Another way of thinking about efficiency is in terms of land used to produce the energy. As climate change reduces the inhabitable footprint of the world, population density can become a real issue. One way that nuclear shines above other low carbon options is in terms of land used to produce energy. In order to generate a similar amount of energy, alternatives such as wind and solar require massive plots of land that are functionally unusable for other purposes. In contrast, nuclear power plants are relatively small. The more land we use for generating power, the less land we have to live on. Prop can certainly argue that making smart decisions about where to place nuclear power plants can allow them to serve population dense areas without further stressing the density by consuming a lot of land. If you look up a map of the nuclear power plants in the United States, you’ll see they primarily run up the eastern seaboard, across the Great Lakes, and randomly scatter near population centers in the southeast. The western part of the country has relatively few nuclear plants. All that to say, nuclear has already proven effective at solving the issue of producing a lot of power for a lot of people in a small geographical area.
Reliability
It’s maybe a tired line, but in order for solar to work the sun must be shining. Wind requires the wind to be blowing. Our renewable energies are great under certain conditions, but when the weather changes their reliability falters. However, as anyone who has lived in Texas knows, changing weather doesn’t equate to a lack of energy consumption. If the sun isn’t shining, people still need heat. Nuclear power does not rely on weather conditions to generate electricity. A nuclear power plant produces energy around the clock. In fact, it has the highest capacity factor of any energy source at 92.5%. That means that 92.5% of the time nuclear power plants are producing their maximum amount of energy. They generally require less routine maintenance than other power sources, and they are designed to operate for at least a year before needing refueling. Most energy experts agree that reliability issues with renewables mean that they will need a backup power source for when they fail. The Prop’s argument can simply be that nuclear should be that source, and that there are not currently enough nuclear reactors to provide adequate backup and supplementation to renewables.
Advancements in Technology
The Opp is likely to use big disasters and issues with waste storage to their advantage. This is for good reason. Major nuclear accidents are scary, and if their environmental impact is severe enough it makes them a poor solution to the climate crisis as you are just trading one environmental crisis for another. As the Prop, it’s a good idea to get out in front of these arguments from the beginning. Nuclear meltdowns are relatively infrequent occurrences, and lots of advancements have been made to make them even less frequent in the future. A variety of regulatory and safety measures have been installed on reactors the world over to ensure their safety, and technology continues to advance. Even in the worst meltdowns, the apocalyptic scenarios once imagined have not proven real. Three Mile Island did not result in any human deaths, and the meltdown was relatively contained without long term consequences. Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster, a tsunami, but there were no deaths or serious injuries associated with the radioactivity. Chernobyl is the outlier with 30 deaths associated and significant health and environmental consequences. Reactors have come a long way since then, and that accident had a lot to do with a flawed reactor design and inadequately trained staff. In short, it was avoidable.
Opp is likely to make arguments about the cost and time of building nuclear power plants, but here new technologies can help as well. The newest generation of reactors operate at a smaller scale and higher temperature making them a much less substantial infrastructure investment. Ideally these small modular reactors could be manufactured as parts and shipped to the site for assembly making them quicker and cheaper to make. Even for the traditional large scale reactors there is a major push to make designs more uniform so that parts can be easily manufactured for a multitude of reactors. Designs that focus on reliability and safety could be replicated quickly with uniform design adoption. Advancements in manufacturing, like drone usage, 3D printing, and the Internet of Things. It’s not that far off. The US Department of Energy is already supporting a project to develop nuclear components using 3D printing.
There are real concerns about nuclear waste. Most of it is currently stored at or near ground level and is vulnerable to a lot of natural forces. There have been advancements in deep geological disposal facilities, but more certainly needs to be done here.
Finally, uranium is a limited resource, and relying on it super long term may prove tricky. However, scientists are working on fuel types that work in modern reactors called high-assay, low enrichment uranium. Essentially this allows for more power to be generated off of less uranium effectively extending the supply.
Prop Reading
• Lake et al. Next Generation Nuclear Power
• Gattie and Massey- 21st Century Nuclear Power
• Shackelford Nuclear Power: The Nucleus of Energy Independence
• Anthony and Trajano- Enhancing Nuclear Energy
Opposition
Renewables and Tradeoffs
As stated above, both sides should argue for a shift away from fossil fuels. While the Prop will likely argue in favor of nuclear’s high capacity, there is growing evidence that renewables can meet our energy needs. The Prop has a compelling argument that renewables and nuclear are not mutually exclusive so one of the first things the Opp should do is generate that competition.
There is significant evidence that investment in either nuclear or renewables decreases investment in the other. Opp should use this evidence to make the case that there is a tradeoff, whether we want there to be or not, and that dollar for dollar investment in renewables goes further towards solving the issue quicker and more long term. The fact is, there are a limited amount of dollars to spend on this project, and time is a pressing matter. Renewables are cheaper and quicker to get up and running than nuclear. The main argument here is that increased focus on nuclear power crowds out discussion, investment, and development of renewable technologies. Even at their highest ground where nuclear is just a better solution, the years of negative press for nuclear have resulted in significant ongoing investments towards renewables. A change in course at this late juncture would inject confusion into the long term climate change plan. There are costs associated with getting the public on board, and any delay magnifies the impact of climate change.
Additionally, we know that at some point we will run out of uranium, and it seems faulty to accelerate that process by building new expensive reactors especially if that makes renewables develop slower. In short, we might just be pushing the issue down the road a bit, but be getting no closer to solving it on the Prop.
Safety
While the idea of mutant turtles living in our sewers and eating our pizza thanks to some radioactive ooze is a bit hyperbolic, there are legitimate safety concerns at all levels of nuclear power generation. The Opp should not allow Prop to run from these.
Nuclear power requires uranium which is incredibly dangerous to mine. There are multiple ways of mining it, mostly depending on the location of the deposit being mined, but all contain significant risks. Open pit mining is considered relatively safe, but can only be done when the ore is near the surface. It involves stripping the topsoil and rocks above the ore to extract it. However, at the end you are left with a pit where the natural ecosystem has been disrupted and radioactive material has been exposed. Underground mining is extremely dangerous for miners who often end up inhaling radon. In areas with porous rocks and uranium, chemicals are pumped into the rocks to dissolve the uranium and pump it back up to the surface. However, this poses risks of liquid uranium and associated chemicals leaking into the groundwater. Certainly safety precautions can help minimize risk, but uranium mining remains one of the more dangerous jobs in the world. There is also significant environmental impact to mining which sort of calls to question if it is wise to destroy the environment in order to save it.
Once the ore is mined it must be extracted and refined. This process also contains risks.
Then of course there is the potential for accidents at the plant. The Prop will try to say accidents are infrequent and not catastrophic, but given renewables have no such risk is it really worth it? Viewed through a different lens, we have just gotten very lucky that there have been relatively few long term effects and deaths from nuclear accidents. Increasing its use, relying on new technologies, and building closer to population centers all magnify the existing risks. Thirty years on, Chernobyl is still an ongoing disaster as most of the nuclear material remains in the reactor, and containment measures deteriorate over time. Fukushima was caused by a tsunami. We know that climate change results in more natural disasters. Is it wise to build more nuclear plants to combat climate change when we know that a side effect of climate change can make those plants more dangerous?
Finally, nuclear plants result in nuclear waste. We do not have a good long term solution to this problem. Currently most of it is stored at or near ground level, and extremely susceptible to natural disasters and weather. Longer term underground solutions risk leakage into groundwater supplies. They also have to be sealed for centuries before they are safe to open, and that puts pressure on the question of whether we will have enough inhabitable land to sustain our population.
Environmental Racism
There is a long history of marginalized populations bearing the environmental cost of energy production. In a lot of ways this is due to the overlap between economic and racial discrimination. Minority neighborhoods tend to be economically segregated such that land values in and around those neighborhoods are low. This gives an economic incentive to build industries there. Plus, richer whiter neighborhoods tend to have the political capital to say no to projects they perceive as undesirable. Then these industries actually do pollute and make the local community worse, driving down property values, and creating a vicious cycle of perverse incentives that place people of color closer to dirty industries than white folk. For all the Prop’s talk about nuclear energy being “clean” the truth is that the risks associated with nuclear power production have always been disproportionally placed upon communities of color. The history of uranium mining, for example, is a case study in eco-racism. There are numerous examples of poor miners of color not being fully told the risks associated with mining, and then dying as a result. The environmental degradation of Navajo lands in our own country are a lasting scar on the history of nuclear energy production. An increase in nuclear power production will not escalate risks uniformly across the population. Instead, they will continue to be thrust upon people who have little choice and benefit the least from the energy’s production. This is an ethical issue with nuclear power production that renewable alternatives do not pose in the same way.
Opp Reading
• Bartheimie Climate Change Mitigation Potential of Wind Energy
• Arnold Once Upon a Mine: The Legacy of Uranium on the Navajo Nation
Conclusion
In conclusion, this is a fascinating and timely topic. The debates may at times get very technical, but successful teams will find a way to weave a narrative into the debate to make it more accessible and engaging for all. Issues of how to solve the energy crisis quickly, on a budget, and in a long term sustainable way requires a nuanced discussion. You should think about how you will deal with and prioritize the moving parts of this debate down the bench to ensure your team’s success. Happy debating!
Jenn Melin is a coach for Team Texas and director at the Institute for Speech & Debate. Jenn has been active in the national and Texas debate communities for over fifteen years. Her students have advanced to elimination rounds of virtually every major national tournament.
This House regrets the commodification of art
I love the way capitalism finds a place - even for its enemies.
-Banksy
As a Mexican woman, when I ponder the motion, “This House regrets the commodification of art,” my thoughts immediately go to the global phenomenon surrounding Frida Kahlo in recent years. I find myself questioning: How has Frida, a staunch Marxist and vocal critic of capitalist ideology, who used painting as a profound means of personal and cathartic expression, been transformed into a brand? How might she feel knowing her legacy has evolved into that of a pop culture emblem, with her visage and masterpieces replicated on countless products worldwide? It’s striking to consider that she’s not only become a beacon of feminist iconography but has also, somewhat problematically, come to represent a canonical vision of Mexican art for many around the world.
To delve into the commodification of art is to navigate the intricate nexus of artistic creation, the marketplace, and cultural identity, especially within the bounds of our consumer-driven society.
Context
Setting the frame is crucial for this motion, as, without clear boundaries, the debate can easily diverge into tangential discussions or become rooted in definition debates or ontological discussions of art, both of which detract from the motion’s core focus.
In terms of definitions, I advise debaters to prioritize defining “commodification of art” as a unified concept, rather than diving into individual definitions of each word. This approach helps prevent potential sidetracking into debates. Especially among novice teams, I’ve observed that discussions can mistakenly pivot to exploring the essence of art or whether a piece has or completely lacks artistic value if it is commodified. Such tangents risk missing the core intent of the motion. I think the motion’s true aim is to assess whether we should endorse a world where artistic creations resist being turned into products within the structures of the market.
A good definition can be that the commodification of art refers to the process by which artistic expressions, originally created for personal, cultural, or aesthetic reasons, are transformed into marketable products, primarily valued for their commercial potential rather than their intrinsic artistic merit.
It is also important to not confuse the commercializing of art and the commodification of art. Throughout history, artists have sought patrons and markets for their work, leading to the commercialization of individual artworks. This process involves selling or promoting art pieces for financial gain or broader exposure. However, commercialization, in its traditional sense, still often respects and recognizes the inherent value and unique qualities of each artwork. On the other hand, the commodification of art, a concept more deeply rooted in modern capitalist ideologies, goes a step further. It involves treating art not just as a product for sale but as a standardized commodity, interchangeable and often produced or at least placed within the market with the primary aim of mass consumption and profit. It’s not the same to buy an artwork because of its aesthetic qualities as buying it as an investment because the value of the piece will likely go up further down the line.
I would also recommend adding in a few examples of artists who have been commodified in various artistic industries, especially the visual arts and music industry which debaters are most likely more familiar with. Examples can include Brazilian painter Romero Britto, who went from independent art student and painter to getting sponsorships for brands such as Absolut, Pepsi and Royal Caribbean, which in turn led to his pieces and overall aesthetic being printed on all kinds of products, or a musician like The Weekend, whose earlier work focused on experimental post-dubstep music and has now become now a huge name brand focused on more mainstream, broad-appeal music.
I'd like to clarify that I believe attempting to approach this motion by debating if commodified art is still “art” or if it retains or loses artistic value is not the most effective strategy. Engaging in such a discussion would lead us down a separate path that necessitates a comprehensive analysis of the definitions of art and artistic value which are heavily subjective and abstract that is very hard to prove on either side.
Instead, a more focused strategy would be to examine whether prioritizing market potential over artistic value is regrettable. For instance, one could analyze the effects of commodification on an artist like Beyoncé. Her undeniable artistry shines through, regardless of her widespread appeal. The analysis could delve into how her aesthetic and message, which robustly champions female and black empowerment, have either benefited or suffered due to her branding.
Finally, it may also be important to frame what “regrets” means in the context of the round. Regrets motions require debaters to assess whether a phenomenon has been overall good or bad and if the world might have been better if said phenomenon had not occurred. In this sense, I think the counterfactual for this motion is not a world without capitalism but a world in which art is separated from dominant market mediums of distribution and is therefore sold in isolation through individual deals and small communities that base the decision to buy an artwork based on their connection to the piece.
In this sense, it is advisable for debaters to always compare and refer to whichever counterfactual is presented by the proposition.
Proposition
The proposition can present a variety of arguments, and I will focus on two main ones: the limitation of the creative process and the specific harms the art industry inflicts on artists and accessibility to art, with an emphasis on minorities and disenfranchised populations.
Firstly, the commodification of art often results in a constrained creative process. Artists might feel compelled to cater to market demands to sustain their livelihoods, which can foster specific trends that homogenize artistic expressions. The pressure to ensure art is market-friendly can drive artists to modify their original ideas or dilute their narratives to appeal to wider audiences. The prevailing inclination is for artists to align with market trends, risking their unique perspectives and innovative potential. As commercial concerns increasingly dominate, art risks becoming formulaic and canonical. This risk arises explicitly from commodification because artists, living within a capitalist framework, often need to adhere to industry standards to achieve success, and artists still want to live off of their art so there is an incentive to join the industry.
Conversely, if an artist simply commercializes their art pieces without surrendering to commodification, their works can be valued by buyers based on aesthetic appeal and personal resonance, less tainted by dominant capitalistic narratives that due to their reach necessarily impact the position on the value of art that people have in the status quo. Thus, both the creation process and the exchange between artist and buyer remain more authentic.
Entering the market of commodified art presents harms on both principled and practical grounds. From a principled standpoint, reducing art primarily to a commodity results in two significant issues. Firstly, tampering with the creative process is intrinsically harmful to the artist because at the core of artistic expression is the idea of authenticity and personal vision, thus it is intrinsically wrong to deprive the artist of the purest form of expression which is part of creative freedom, which is something that any society that values freedom of expression cares for.
Secondly, it erodes a fundamental purpose of art, which is to express ideas through the creation of various pieces. In a world where a piece’s commercial potential primarily drives its creation and acquisition, the very essence of art is compromised. Consequently, the societal value of art diminishes, causing it to be perceived more as an aesthetic product rather than something valuable for the manifestation of human expression on its own.
Debaters should tread cautiously when employing this line of reasoning. It can inadvertently narrow the debate’s scope to whether human expression is the sole purpose of art. It's more strategic to frame the argument around whether expression is enhanced or diminished by commodification and the implications thereof.
On a practical level, treating art predominantly as a commodity can result in the market favoring less original and innovative pieces, leading to a glut of similar art, thereby limiting the diversity available to the public. Debating teams might consider whether to emphasize the importance of art being diverse as a primary argument or integrate it into broader discussions and reconstructions.
It's worth acknowledging that groundbreaking innovative pieces can still be created on both sides of the House. However, the proposition can win this comparative by highlighting two factors.
Firstly, even if only a subset of artists conform to market-driven themes, that unique artistic potential is exclusively lost on the opposition side due to commodification. Debaters can also argue the inherent loss in the turning of original artists into mass-appealing ones. On this point, they might argue that mass appeal is bad or diminishes artistic value, but as I mentioned in the context section of this entry, I don’t think that’s a strong argument. A better approach could be that if it weren’t for commodification, better art would be created simply because the artists focus on their most genuine creative impulses, and there is no need to repeat patterns that have already proven to be profitable so there is an incentive for innovation and creative freedom.
Secondly, it's not just about the volume of innovative art but about which pieces gain prominence and value. In a world where powerful entities, such as galleries, auction houses, and record labels, dominate art valuation, it’s probable that art aligning with their set standards and interests will be more showcased and esteemed. Consequently, in a commodified art world, even if innovative art is produced, it might have a diminished impact compared to a world where market dynamics don't dominate value, reach, and distribution. This point is further developed in the second argument.
This argument proves that the commodification of art is net harmful because it constrains the creative spirit, pressuring artists to align with market trends rather than authenticity. Commodification reduces art from a profound human expression to a mere marketable product, jeopardizing creative diversity. This dynamic not only stifles artists’ freedom but also limits public access to truly diverse and innovative works. When commercial interests overshadow genuine artistic expression, society loses the enjoyment, richness and diversity that art as a purely expressive exercise form, provides.
Given the corporate determination of which artists are deemed more valuable than others, the second argument will delve into the specific harms that the commodification of art inflicts upon art's role in society. The focus will be on how the industry systematically disadvantages marginalized artists while amplifying dominant, often oppressive, narrative
The “value” of a piece in the art industry is defined within the context of the profit-driven interests of the art market; hence, deeper research into the intricacies of the art market is advised.
One clear detriment of art commodification is its prioritization of art that aligns with dominant hegemonic narratives, prevalent in other industries and inherent to the capitalist system. This occurs for two main reasons:
Firstly, the drive for market appeal and mass art consumption in a capitalist system seeks the generation of maximum profit. For art to be commodified, it often needs to resonate with the broadest possible audience. Dominant narratives, by definition, are widely accepted and comprehended by the majority. Thus, art that echoes these narratives is more likely to gain widespread appeal, and subsequently, increased profitability. This furthers the dominant capitalist narratives because the art industry is part of a bigger system that is sustained in such narratives, and which is a primary transmitter of the narratives.
Secondly, the risk aversion exhibited by influential economic stakeholders in the market plays a role. Investing in art or promoting artists is a considerable financial undertaking for galleries, record companies, publishers, and other stakeholders. These entities gravitate towards backing projects perceived to offer a guaranteed return on investment. Art that challenges established norms or introduces alternative narratives is deemed riskier in terms of market reception.
A direct consequence of this market reaction is that art deemed most valuable, and thus most profitable, is that which the overarching system is comfortable with. Given the art industry's predominantly Western and white-centric orientation, the art that gains prominence is often from these backgrounds. This results from both its inherent profitability and its alignment with the interests of those who dictate market trends.
This phenomenon is harmful in multiple ways. Firstly, dominant narratives consistently permeate society through various channels, such as education, literature, politics, media, and of course, art. This continuous reinforcement shapes perceptions of what is desirable or valuable. In commodifying art, the idea of Western and white supremacy is fortified both explicitly—through the assignment of monetary value—and subconsciously, as individuals internalize the perceived superiority of Western white art.
Secondly, the systematic prioritization of white and Western art creates barriers to accessibility, economic advancement, and representation for non-white and non-Western artists. A vicious cycle emerges wherein artists from marginalized backgrounds find it challenging to profit from their work in an industry that values already-profitable art.
Only those artists equipped to navigate the complexities of the art market—typically those with resources or connections—achieve widespread recognition. Their initial success might be linked to selling affordable pieces to influential collectors who then utilize their networks to further the artist's prominence and thus the market value of the piece they acquired. Such dynamics are also evident in publishing, where the projected profitability of a book and other works by the same author influences book selection and allocation of advertising
This framework sidelines countless talented artists without such means. It perpetuates the misleading narrative that only those artists who “make it” possess genuine talent. While they might or might not be talented, many overlooked artists did have artistic proposals that could contribute to art. As a result, art from entire marginalized communities may remain obscure or lack adequate representation if it’s seen as “non-commercial.”
The proposition can further delve into this argument by acknowledging that although some non-Western and non-white art thrives in the present-day commodified art scene, their impact could be more profound in a world without commodification proposed in the counterfactual. In such a world, even more artists from marginalized backgrounds would gain visibility, and their messages would remain undiluted.
Firstly, in the status quo, innovative and avant-garde tendencies that the industry does endorse mainly come from artists who are privileged. The market chooses to conveniently support new and revolutionary art whenever the appeal to the majority is sufficient.
Historically, art has served as a medium for social commentary, resistance, and profound societal critique. If artists are solely driven by commercial viability, this critical role of art could be compromised. Such social critique becomes more challenging to express, contingent on the industry's comfort level with the represented artistic or social movement. Even if the industry does offer support, the message often gets diluted.
An example of this phenomenon is the early commodification of Cubist art. While Cubism was primarily an aesthetic movement and its political undertones weren't at the forefront, some artists, like Pablo Picasso and Ferdinand Léger, were deeply influenced by communist and left leaning politics. However, the industry chose to emphasize their more “palatable" or “agreeable” qualities, thus downplaying the political dimensions of their work.
Conversely, the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s, a pivotal movement in Black art and culture linked to the Civil Rights Movement, didn't receive the support it deserved from the mainstream industry. This movement was not supported by the industry because it threatened to so while there was an appreciation for the “exotic” qualities of black art, there was no sufficient investment or distribution by the industry because of the threat it posed to institutional racism.
Furthermore, when the industry does endorse non-dominant art, it's often distorted, oversimplified, or appropriated, both ideologically and monetarily. This can lead to a form of cultural reductionism, wherein one influential artist from a marginalized group becomes the archetype for that entire community in the industry's eyes.
Two illustrative examples from the visual arts industry underscore the trend of oversimplification and cultural reductionism. Firstly, Frida Kahlo has emerged as arguably the most renowned Mexican artist globally. As a result, many industries producing art-related products tend to overwhelmingly favor Kahlo's aesthetic when representing "Mexican" art. It's a rarity to find works inspired by Siqueiros, Tamayo, or Remedios Varo in art markets across Europe or the United States. This fixation has narrowed the broad spectrum of Mexican aesthetics to predominantly Kahlo's imagery, often seeing her face replicated on a myriad of products. This inadvertently positions her as the quintessential Mexican feminist, despite her not being the central figure in Mexico's specific women's rights movement. Moreover, Frida’s actual social causes were absolutely contrary to the commodification of art, since she was a vocal supporter of socialism and Marxism and now her decontextualized legacy is being exploited by the industry she so despised. Leveraging the widespread appeal of Kahlo's aesthetic in such a manner around the world is also cultural appropriation of Mexican art.
Similarly, Jean-Michel Basquiat has become emblematic of the urban vision of black art that's predominantly supported by the industry. This association has inadvertently oversimplified black art, creating an impression that movements like graffiti, neo-expressionism, and primitivism are the primary mediums through which black social issues find artistic expression, thereby perpetuating narrow stereotypes of what black art entails.
Artistic appropriation in the industry extends beyond mere representation; it also infiltrates financial aspects. The industry frequently capitalizes on artists’ creations without giving them due credit or financial compensation. This is evident in the systematic undercutting of royalties for black artists over decades. Notably, black jazz artists in the mid-20th century often found themselves financially strained, despite their significant contributions to music, and producers and record labels kept most of the profits and more artistic credit than they actually had.
Another manifestation of this appropriation is the industry's whitewashing of certain aesthetics. Trends or styles that originate within marginalized communities frequently gain more traction and popularity when they're co-opted by white artists. Country music serves as a poignant example. While its roots are deeply entrenched in southern black music and blues, it has largely evolved into a genre dominated and popularized by white artists. Another example can be Elvis Presley, who became famous by replicating black music and dance that was unacceptable and scandalous under a segregated system but became innovative under a white attractive young man like him.
It is worth noting that treating art as a commodity can provide an incentive to not display artworks for the public that collectors buy and keep in private collections or in storage simply because they are an investment, especially visual arts pieces, rare books, etc. This also affects unprivileged groups disproportionately because it limits the public’s access to a wider variety of art and to culture in general, since it is through museum, libraries, and public spaces such as parks that the general population can access art.
Finally, all of the above does not mean that there are no alternative mediums in the status quo for showing non-hegemonic art, but these spaces are eclipsed so people are less likely to access them when they are bombarded by industry-approved content, so their outreach is much smaller.
In essence, the commodification of art results in a diluted cultural and ethnic narrative. The industry often sidelines non-dominant art, perpetuating a cycle of exploitation and misrepresentation.
This argument proves that the commodification of art is net harmful because it perpetuates dominant hegemonic narratives, sidelining and distorting the voices of marginalized artists. In a system driven by profit, art that challenges the established norms or offers alternative perspectives is often underrepresented, undervalued, or modified to fit the marketable mold. This not only suppresses the rich diversity of global artistic expression but also fortifies harmful stereotypes and reinforces cultural barriers. When art becomes primarily a commodity, its intrinsic power to challenge, represent, and inspire is diminished, and society is left with a narrowed and biased understanding of human expression.
In conclusion, turning art into just another thing to sell has big consequences. When artists make art to please buyers instead of following their creative impulses, their work can become too similar and less unique. Also, this system often ignores or changes the art from groups that aren’t in the majority, like certain ethnic or cultural groups. This means their stories and styles don’t get the attention they deserve. Even though there are places where these artists can share their work, they don’t get as much attention as the bigger art market. In the end, when art is just about making money, we all miss out on the beauty and stories that come from true creativity and diverse voices.
Opposition
The opposition also presents a compelling case. I will focus on three main arguments in favor of the commodification of art. Firstly, there’s the increased accessibility for the general public and heightened visibility for the artists; secondly, the introduction of more diversity and innovation to the art scene; and thirdly, the enhanced presence of art in daily life.
In this first argument, one of the primary benefits of the commodification of art is the increased accessibility it provides for both artists and the general public. By embracing market logic, artists are granted economic opportunities that facilitate greater exposure of their work. This not only benefits the creators but also enhances accessibility for different groups, including collectors, art enthusiasts, and the general public.
The vast reach of a potent industry plays a crucial role in this context. When the industry's primary goal is profit generation, with art being positioned as a marketable product, it's expected that industry stakeholders will leverage every available resource to maximize accessibility. This could involve providing spaces for exhibitions, channeling investments into marketing and publicity, bolstering social media presence, or sponsoring artists. As the artist flourishes, the industry benefits and grows simultaneously.
The amplification in art commodification means that art gets replicated and distributed on a vast scale, thus democratizing access. Artistic reproductions, spanning from prints to digital media, allow a broader audience to possess, admire, and engage with art beyond the confines of exclusive galleries or private collections.
This broadened accessibility implies an industry-driven motivation to cater to various consumer bases, ensuring both affordable and luxury art options. This democratization counters exclusivity that was often seen in the past where art was limited to well-connected circles and priced higher due to the individual costs associated with its production, display, and distribution. The industry has an incentive to cater to more markets and even niche spaces because diversifying the options available according to the demand of different groups is an opportunity for profit
While distribution is possible on both sides of the debate, the unique advantage of the opposition lies in the underlying motives and the scale. Utilizing mass production and capitalist mechanisms to market even unique pieces of art enhances accessibility. For instance, Amazon showcases handcrafted art from indigenous communities in Colombia and Peru, offering affordable shipping options. These options might be out of reach for these communities on their own, but Amazon's expansive infrastructure facilitates such competitive pricing. Platforms like Amazon, which amplify accessibility and cost-efficiency, rely on the commodification of products. Without it, the same artwork would be less recognized since people wouldn’t get to know of it and likely be more costly in the proposition’s scenario. This is especially true given that while showcase distribution platforms can exist on both sides of the house, it’s harder for small ones to achieve the same result as profit-driven companies.
Furthermore, commodification can secure artists a stable income, empowering them to commit to their craft full-time. By selling their art, they can achieve financial autonomy, lessening their dependence on patrons or alternative financial avenues.
These benefits are unique to the commodification of art. The alternative isn't a world devoid of capitalism; such a scenario would be a distinct debate or pose a heavy burden on the proposition if they were to advocate for this counterfactual, thus making a capitalist world free an unlikely proposition strategy. Instead, the alternative operates under capitalist principles, with the exception of art’s distribution and visibility. In this hypothetical, artists still need a livelihood. This means they face a choice: invest more heavily in distributing and promoting their art or pursue another occupation, which might detract from their primary artistic pursuits.
Furthermore, this argument rests on the idea that the aesthetic value of art is the same on both sides of the house, people can still appreciate art for its intrinsic qualities while taking advantage of the structure and tools of the market to disseminate different artistic expressions that they find worthy.
The commodification of the art industry doesn't restrict artists or enthusiasts from working outside its parameters. Systems that prioritize aesthetic or personal value can exist alongside a commodified art framework. This implies that the benefits of commodification can be advantageous for those who choose to engage, while a more aesthetic-driven approach remains an available option. Ultimately, it's an artist's choice whether to present their work within the broader market or not.
In this regard, even if the proposition contends that biases exist in determining the value of artworks within the commodified art market, it's equally valid that these biases persist for individuals within a capitalist system that governs other industries in the proposition's alternate world. Thus, it's probable that the issues they emphasize would also emerge in their counterfactual scenario. Distinctly on the opposition's side, influential art stakeholders have the incentive to expand their market reach, ultimately enhancing accessibility and diversity, as will be elaborated in the second argument.
This argument proves that the commodification of art is net beneficial because it facilitates a broader accessibility to artistic content, diversifying options, and empowering artists with economic stability. In a world driven by market principles, commodification amplifies the reach of art, allowing it to touch and influence larger audience and more specific audiences. While the inherent aesthetic value of art remains unchanged, the industry's power to distribute and promote it on a larger scale offers artists the means to pursue their craft more extensively. Contrary to limiting artistic expression, commodification offers artists and consumers alike a choice in how they engage with art, ensuring both economic viability and the continuation of art's timeless essence.
The second argument builds upon the notion that the commodification of art democratizes it, paving the way for a diverse range of artworks to be recognized and valued. Historically, the art world has been under the influence of Western aesthetic standards, predominantly reflecting white Western aesthetics. However, viewing art as a commodity can dilute the dominance of such a hegemonic art form, as the market naturally encourages diversity.
Even if the people in charge of the high-end art and music markets focus primarily on distributing hegemonic art, less dominating art also finds a space under the commodification of art since it allows for alternative spaces to have incentives to host and promote art from those artists that are rejected from the mainstream industries to due the increasing demand for different kinds of art in different demographics.
Platforms like Etsy, Redbubble, and similar sites enable artists from various backgrounds to display and sell their works, sidestepping traditional art-world gatekeepers. In terms of financial backing, crowdfunding platforms and social media also empower artists, offering them a platform to earn recognition and direct financial support from their followers, bypassing the need for critics or galleries.
In a world without the potential for profit, platforms like these might never emerge. Their existence relies on art's treatment as a product. For instance, Redbubble sells an wide variety of items such as t-shirts, pins, postcards, prints, and cell phone cases embellished with artistic designs. While artists on this platform might not always achieve widespread fame, it provides them an avenue to earn from their craft.
Examples of non-traditional artists from developing or marginalized backgrounds flourishing thanks to these profit-driven platforms—when they might have struggled in conventional art environments—include Brazilian musician MC Fioti, who leveraged YouTube to share his work and introduce Brazilian funk music globally, and Nigerian graphic designer Uzoma "Maxplo" Ezeson, who initially rose to prominence via Instagram and subsequently collaborated with renowned brands like Nike and MTV.
In the long term, these smaller companies that have an incentive to showcase art that would not conform to the dominant narratives end up influencing the greater art market and therefore it is thanks to the commodification of art responding to globalization that today there is more diversity in the mainstream art industries than ever before.
Innovation also arises from the existence of these new market-driven platforms given that the interaction with other content and artists influences new creative ideas, so there are artistic tendencies that uniquely emerge directly as a result of the commodification of art. Treating art as a product can lead to new understandings of aesthetics.
Even art that may challenge or unsettle prevailing systems can find its niche, given its potential profitability in specific sectors. The commodification of art benefits not just large corporations but also small-scale businesses.
Local print stores, ceramic shops, niche art platforms, and similar ventures can attribute their success to the commodification of art. Treating art as a product enables budding entrepreneurs to diversify their offerings, thereby profiting from various artistic adaptations. In contrast, without this model, artists would be limited to direct displays of their aesthetic value without the flexibility to expand their craft into versatile products.
Also, market incentives to beat the competition and offer a platform to offer more diverse and innovative artworks because there is demand for it.
Furthermore, the market's competitive nature incentivizes innovation, pushing artists to diversify and cater to niche markets. This leads to a proliferation of artistic expressions and styles. Conversely, without the supportive framework of existing platforms, artists in a non-commodified art world might find it challenging to innovate and share their groundbreaking works.
This argument proves that the commodification of art is net beneficial because it inherently democratizes art, diminishing the traditionally hegemonic Western aesthetic and paving the way for a plethora of artistic voices from diverse backgrounds. This marketplace diversification is evident in the rise of platforms that bypass traditional art-world gatekeepers, allowing unconventional artists to prosper both creatively and financially. Notably, these platforms, inspired by the commodification of art, lead to more varied and innovative art forms due to competition and the demand for uniqueness. This model not only fosters increased diversity within mainstream art sectors but also bolsters local businesses and enables artists to extend their crafts into innovative products. Ultimately, the commodification of art, far from stifling creativity, enriches it, allowing for broader artistic representation and innovation in response to evolving global tastes.
The third argument relies on the idea that the commodification of art, which pervades various mediums, prompts other industries to embrace an “aesthetic” way of life. As a result, there's a surge in products and experiences designed to provide sensory and spiritually enriching encounters in our daily routines.
Commodification seamlessly integrates art into daily life, evident in everyday items such as clothing lines, stationery, and home décor. This intertwining of art and daily life amplifies our aesthetic appreciation and self-expression. Such an environment undeniably elevates the quality of life, as surrounding oneself with objects of beauty and personal significance can enhance well-being and reduce stress.
Appreciating art is a universal human experience, serving as a reflection of our distinct personalities. By increasing its presence, spaces and moments become deeply personalized, resonating with our individual identities in a world that tends to homogeneous lives that hardly provides room for individuality due to the strict structures of the system, especially when this approach reaches impersonal spaces.
The coexistence of aesthetic-focused products and art crafted for pure expression is a unique benefit derived from art’s commodification. When art transforms into a marketable product, it becomes accessible to other industries, allowing for broader impacts on our lives. This expansive influence is a testament to the power of art in a market-driven society.
Examples of how this aesthetic life looks can include things such as stickers on laptops, phone cases, and commissioned art works offered on platforms, all of which are objects that are ever present in our lives.
Overall, the opposition’s case proves that the commodification of art is a mean that recognizes that taking advantage of the already existing system leads to a greater presence, diversity and impact of art for artists and the general public alike. While profit-driven interests might seem contrary to inherent aesthetic value, the truth is that using capitalist tools to navigate the art world and appreciating art are not only not mutually exclusive but good partners.
Conclusion
Returning to my initial reflection, I believe Frida Kahlo would be deeply disheartened by the commodification of her image and art. She would likely prefer the world envisioned by the proposition. However, the opposition could validly argue that it's due to the global "Frida Kahlo" brand that people worldwide have come to appreciate her art, resonate with her political stances, and admire the richness of her culture.
In the final analysis, capitalism has a unique knack for assimilating even its fiercest critics, a phenomenon vividly evident in the nuanced realm of art. Whether this assimilation is beneficial or detrimental ultimately hinges on the debater's skill in swaying the judge.
Further reading
Book Review: ‘The Story of Art Without Men,’ by Katy Hessel - The New York Times
Black Artists Are Still Getting Ripped Off the Way Little Richard Was
Aesthetics, or, The Capitalist Production of Cultural Logic __ | non/nom
Adam Ruins Everything - How the Fine Art Market is a Scam | truTV
How Social Media Is Shaping Art – The Impact of an Instagram Obsessed Culture
Artists Network-Ed: How Social Media Is Changing Art And Vice Versa | by DANAE
Isolda Vela is a lawyer specialized in alternative dispute resolution and gender law. She is the coach of the Mexico Development Team.
