Thoughts on the Oxford Union Debate

On November 5th, Charles Thomson participated in a debate on conceptual art at the Oxford Union. The proposition was entitled, "This House Believes that Conceptual Art 'Just Isn't Art'".

Here is a video of a rebuttal of the opposition, given by Mr. Thomson during the debate.



In debates like these, a touch of humor every now and then is important because it keeps the audience interested, and allows the audience to recognize logical fallacy more easily. In arguably one of the most memorable quotes of the debate, Charles used humor to his advantage in refuting artist Miroslaw Balka's argument that "the spine of art is conceptualism," saying, "but what would we look like walking around with just a spine?"

But does it matter if the proposition 'won' or not? Of course not. Although, it would've be nice to thumb our noses at the losers afterward.

From my understanding, the purpose of the debate was to directly confront the status quo by presenting this argument which has strong ideological convictions and appeal amongst a large populace.

What happens afterward is more or less irrelevant. Just the action by the challenging parties of taking a stand is a decisive victory. The final tallying of votes at the Union is not a referendum on the definition of art. To the contrary, if a nationwide poll was conducted today, I believe that a plurality of the public would agree with the sentiments of Remodernists and other rational-minded people.

In keeping with this trend of Remodernism, we are speaking truth to power, specifically, a money-driven, global, institutional juggernaut.