Problem

- Artists are becoming very timid with their expression because of the
constant clamour from people that their art is always focusing on
negative subjects.

Burden
- We want to prove in this debate that these oppressive reminders is the
only plausible and effective way to keep these reminders alive.

Clarify perspective
-
Issues
- How do we address social dilemmas - there is no silent clamour
- derogatory remarks is still thrown around but somehow
it gives us a gateway to have a discussion

**DISCUSSION HAPPENS, BUT HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE QUALITY

OF THE CONVERSATION.
***WHY RECLAIMING WILL PROVIDE SUCCESS AND BE MORE
EFFECTIVE
****DO NOT BURDEN PUSH OP TOO MUCH

Pre-emption
- Government is trying to push the idea of disensitizing.
- surfacce level, even if that happens, racism would still be evident bc of
ignorance

Extensions:
1.) An effective subject for established artists.
- It gives progress for art (Black art movement)

2. ) Art is political
- It gives people the notion that our society is in the progress because of
these oppressions.
- it incentivises the art movement.
- it gives artists a unique obligation to provide these art.

3. ) Have different interpretations

- e.g. renaissance is retrospective, it is progressing.
- we tend to forget history. In gov side not wanting these constant
reminders, its removing the impact thus making it forgettable.

In our side, its okay for us to utilize dirty and derrogatory remarks, as
long as it solves the burden more effectively. Please prove how
disensitizing and not using these derrogatory words create a better
solution.

Talking about traction wouldn’tt you think that havingg a more explicit
art form be more impactful and give the artist more traction?

Even if we do not reclaim it, the progress for reclamation is already a win
for us because it shifts the discussion.

Why is not reclaiming these oppressive remark lessen the politicization

of Art.
How do people from minorities become an established artist? There is
a support within the community.