Quote from: jhkimHuh?  I think quite the opposite.  Reading a book or watching a play doesn't produce any visible creative output.  They might involve creativity in interpretation, but that creativity doesn't necessarily get communicated to anyone.  In contrast, role-playing within a game is intentional, artificial, and (if done well) interesting and original.  

This might come down to details of the definition.  I think of acting as "art", for example, even though actors will generally say lines written by the playwright.  And players have a lot more room for creative input than actors with prewritten lines do.  




Here I'm going to strongly disagree, because I think quite the opposite.  I think that mainstream culture too often pushes the idea that "art" and creativity in general are things which we have to consume from a few central sources.  i.e. If we do something for ourselves, it isn't "art" because it doesn't look as pretty/polished as a multi-million dollar movie, opera, or museum.  However, I think that local creativity has enormous value, and it's part of people and communities thinking for themselves.  If you think that your own personal creative works can't stand up to scrutiny, then I think you need to change your standards.  I discuss this more in some blog posts, which I've now tagged "art":

http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/tag/art

The point is, you should play art.  You should think of "art" as something which only distant, "important" people do.  You should think of it as something which you can do.  

The stories you write and the games you play might not hold up to the same standards as best-selling novels you can buy off the shelf.  But that means that you have to adjust your standards.  Because you should pay attention to the creative works of yourself and your friends.

I *do* think of my work as art.
Because I'm an artist.
And I'm annoyed with people calling things art that aren't.
Art is art. Science is science. Religion is religion. All of the above are wonderful intellectual pursuits. But just because they have this in common doesn't make them the same. Art is not science, even if an artist utilizes chemistry to paint. Art is not religion, even if it contains religious themes. Religion isn't science, even if it fosters the pursuit of knowledge. Religion isn't art, regardless of the immense body of art and holy text that accompany it. Science is not religion, even if it is used to supplement it or has its origin there. Science is not art regardless of the illustrations in your medical textbook.

Likewise, gaming is a wonderful intellectual pursuit. But it is not art. It is not religion. It is not science.

All things good and intellectual are not art!

Even if art is utilized in gaming.

Quote from: beejazzLikewise, gaming is a wonderful intellectual pursuit. But it is not art. It is not religion. It is not science.

All things good and intellectual are not art!

Even if art is utilized in gaming.

Fair enough.  We might disagree about the definition of the word "art", but at least we agree on the more basic principle of the value of personal creativity.  

I'm curious about your view of what art is.  

For example, on my blog, Keith had at least a consistent definition of art that depended on the consumption by uninvolved strangers.  I found it a little odd, but at least it's a working, consistent definition.  
My own is an intentional work involving creativity or aesthetics.  So, to the extent that some RPG play lacks in creativity or aesthetics, then I'd agree that it's not art.  However, calling something "art" for me is not a judgement call in value.  Something may be bad art, or even stupid, but I'm not going to say it's not art because I don't like it.  

So, for example, my impression was that System Danmarc was pretty thin as far as political commentary goes -- but that puts it on the same level as lots of art.

Quote from: jhkimFair enough.  We might disagree about the definition of the word "art", but at least we agree on the more basic principle of the value of personal creativity.  

I'm curious about your view of what art is.  

For example, on my blog, Keith had at least a consistent definition of art that depended on the consumption by uninvolved strangers.  I found it a little odd, but at least it's a working, consistent definition.  
My own is an intentional work involving creativity or aesthetics.  So, to the extent that some RPG play lacks in creativity or aesthetics, then I'd agree that it's not art.  However, calling something "art" for me is not a judgement call in value.  Something may be bad art, or even stupid, but I'm not going to say it's not art because I don't like it.  

So, for example, my impression was that System Danmarc was pretty thin as far as political commentary goes -- but that puts it on the same level as lots of art.

Well... I define art above as clearly as I can, but maybe it needs further clarification.
The *primary* purpose of the thing is its aesthetics, rather than its function.
A game's *primary* purpose is to be played. Aesthetics is only a means to an end here, rather than the end itself.

Quote from: beejazzWell... I define art above as clearly as I can, but maybe it needs further clarification.

The *primary* purpose of the thing is its aesthetics, rather than its function.
A game's *primary* purpose is to be played. Aesthetics is only a means to an end here, rather than the end itself.

Well, but play itself is a creative, aesthetic act which doesn't have a practical function.  That is, play doesn't put food on the table or transport you to work or anything.  So I don't see how this is different than a script being written to be performed or even a novel being written to be read.  

Since we're agreed that things we do for ourselves can be art, let's compare some activities:
1) You and some friends get together for a minis painting session.  You get together in a comfortable environment and paint miniatures.  You comment on each other's work, give tips, and so forth.  

2) You and some friends get together for theatre improv games.  

3) You and some friends get together for a storytelling exercise.  You each take a turn and tell a story to the others.  

4) You and some friends get together for a one-room larp.  

5) You and some friends get together for a tabletop RPG.  

Is the painting art?  Is the storytelling?

QuoteIs the painting art?  Is the storytelling?

A process is never art. The resulting artifact can be, though.

So an RPG is art before it is played and after it is played but not while it is played?

This is an unnecessarily complicated explanation.

Rethink.

I beat the shit out of someone. I blindside him, knock him down, stradle him, and repeatedly slam his face into the ground. I step on his back and pull/twist his arm until it breaks. I pick him up and throw him a short distance.

Now, a photo of this person after having been thusly beat... THAT would be art. The person himself? NOT ART. The person who did the beating? NOT AN ARTIST. Just because art can be found or aesthetics can be appreciated in a situation does NOT make it art.

And don't feed me any lines about how, if I enjoyed thrashing the guy, it's an aesthetic experience for me. Art is an aesthetic piece for the viewing of a neutral third party. I beat the shit out of this hypothetical dude for MY personal enjoyment.

Quote from: SettembriniA process is never art. The resulting artifact can be, though.

So are you saying that if someone tells a story, it isn't art -- but if someone films him telling a story (like Spalding Gray's "Swimming to Cambodia", say), then the film is art?  And a band playing a song isn't art but the recording of it is?  It seems odd to me to say that live performances are never art.  I would think that a lot of musicians, actors, dancers, and others would object to this.  On the other hand, it is at least consistent -- and I'd agree that for that definition then RPGs are not art.  

Regarding beejaz's example of beating someone up.  To me, beating someone up isn't art because it isn't a creative act.  But, on the other hand, if you were singing or dancing or telling stories those could be art in themselves even if no one filmed them.  So, for example, I'd agree that boardgame play isn't art.  And if there was a session using RPG rules which had no creativity to it -- perhaps a wargame-like session of all mechanical combat -- then it couldn't be art.

But imagining what a character does and communicating it is a creative act.  It is much more like what singers or actors or puppeteers do than like a plain functional task such as digging a ditch or beating someone up.

Quote from: jhkimSo are you saying that if someone tells a story, it isn't art -- but if someone films him telling a story (like Spalding Gray's "Swimming to Cambodia", say), then the film is art?  And a band playing a song isn't art but the recording of it is?  It seems odd to me to say that live performances are never art.  I would think that a lot of musicians, actors, dancers, and others would object to this.  On the other hand, it is at least consistent -- and I'd agree that for that definition then RPGs are not art.  

Regarding beejaz's example of beating someone up.  To me, beating someone up isn't art because it isn't a creative act.  But, on the other hand, if you were singing or dancing or telling stories those could be art in themselves even if no one filmed them.  So, for example, I'd agree that boardgame play isn't art.  And if there was a session using RPG rules which had no creativity to it -- perhaps a wargame-like session of all mechanical combat -- then it couldn't be art.

But imagining what a character does and communicating it is a creative act.  It is much more like what singers or actors or puppeteers do than like a plain functional task such as digging a ditch or beating someone up.

A person telling *himself* a story.
That's not art.
That's schizophrenia.
A person telling *an audience* a story.
That's art.
Likewise, if me and my friends are just playing around with "improv" (I become the "broken robot" and start flailing around while everyone around tries to "fix" me). If there's no audience, it's just a bunch of teenagers fucking around. If there's an audience, THEN it might be improv.

Art does not exist only for the artist.
Games exist only for those who play.

Quote from: beejazzLikewise, if me and my friends are just playing around with "improv" (I become the "broken robot" and start flailing around while everyone around tries to "fix" me). If there's no audience, it's just a bunch of teenagers fucking around. If there's an audience, THEN it might be improv.

Art does not exist only for the artist.
Games exist only for those who play.

Yeah, I've seen this argument.  I find it odd, because it means that whether something is art has nothing to do with the thing itself.  For example, it is fairly common among writers and painters for there to be works which are never made public until after their death -- Emily Dickinson is the classic example.  Because she was a hermit who never published her poems, were her poems "just fucking around"?  And did somehow the same poems then later become "art" when they were published after her death?  

I also find this odd regarding audience participation.  According to your view, somehow having a passive, uncreative audience makes something art -- whereas if the audience becomes creative and joins in then the act is reduced to "fucking around".  

So, for example, there were around 400 people involved in the System Danmarc larp.  Presumably a show for 400 passive audience members could be art in your eyes, but because it was an act which involved everyone -- where everyone had creative input -- then it is cannot be art.

Quote from: jhkimYeah, I've seen this argument.  I find it odd, because it means that whether something is art has nothing to do with the thing itself.  For example, it is fairly common among writers and painters for there to be works which are never made public until after their death -- Emily Dickinson is the classic example.  Because she was a hermit who never published her poems, were her poems "just fucking around"?  And did somehow the same poems then later become "art" when they were published after her death?  

I also find this odd regarding audience participation.  According to your view, somehow having a passive, uncreative audience makes something art -- whereas if the audience becomes creative and joins in then the act is reduced to "fucking around".  

So, for example, there were around 400 people involved in the System Danmarc larp.  Presumably a show for 400 passive audience members could be art in your eyes, but because it was an act which involved everyone -- where everyone had creative input -- then it is cannot be art.

Audience participation: The show is still primarily BY the artist FOR an audience.

LARPING: See my earlier critereon. Is aesthetics the primary purpose? NO. LARPers go out in droves and beat the shit out of each other with mock-weapons. See my "beating the shit out of people" analogy. Even with an audience, this is more of a spectator sport.

THE POEMS: EXACTLY. Art requires an audience. It is not the sole requirement, but it is required.

Quote from: beejazzAudience participation: The show is still primarily BY the artist FOR an audience.

No, that depends on the circumstances.  There will be some events which have only token audience involvement, and others where the focus is on the group.  Your point seems to be a circular argument, since you're saying that if the audience participates too much, then it ceases to be art.  

Quote from: beejazzLARPING: See my earlier critereon. Is aesthetics the primary purpose? NO. LARPers go out in droves and beat the shit out of each other with mock-weapons. See my "beating the shit out of people" analogy. Even with an audience, this is more of a spectator sport.

That's a stereotype and a gross overgeneralization.  However, I agree with you that if people are getting together primarily to beat on each other with padded weapons, then the result is not art.  The same goes if they're primarily there to drink beer, eat pretzels, and roll dice for XP.  

However, System Danmarc had no padded weapons or beating on each other.  It was a political larp set in a near-future where an official underclass (Class C Citizens) was created and oppressed.

The "weak" art standard as implied by Mr. Kim results in my playing the Ottoman Empire in Arms being art.

For what it's worth, the Google definition of art nowhere includes the need for an audience. It does involve the standard that the work "affects the sense of beauty" but there's no reason that couldn't be on the part of the creator.

It also involves the standard of "conscious production" so that lets out the guy being beat up for the enjoyment of violence's sake.

I think the line between audience and creator is explicitly complicated in an RPG--as a GM, I see things that I appreciate "as an audience" coming from my players (excellent representation of character, for example). As a player, I see things I appreciate "as an audience" from my GM (a perfectly executed plot-twist, for example).

Whether these qualify as "art" or not aside, my experience tells me I can appreciate the RPG experience both as a contributor and as an audience (and the same for everyone else involved).

-Marco

Still RPGs =/= Art.
As I have said...
a)AESTHETICS (must be the primary purpose of the thing)
b)INTENTION/ARTIFICIALITY
c)ORIGINALITY (to an extent, and a slightly dubious extent at that. see above)
d)AUDIENCE

*one* of these alone will not make art. "Anything with an audience" is not art. "Anything beautiful" is not art. "Anything intentional" and by that token, "anything creative" is not art. "Anything original" is not art. Art is something that is beautiful (or at least has beauty as its primary purpose), intentional/artificial (creative), original, and for an audience (or viewer, or reader, or whatever.

Beauty is not the *primary* purpose of gaming. Likewise, I would not consider it sufficiently "spectator." Rehearsals for a play? NOT A PLAY. NOT ART.

Gaming might utilize and rely heavily on art, but that doesn't make it art. Any more than sketching the Virgin Mary makes me a priest.

Quote from: beejazzArt is something that is beautiful (or at least has beauty as its primary purpose)

This is the bit I disagree with.  Most of the work of the Chapman Brothers, Damien Hurst and Gilbert and George (the first three examples that came to mind) are most definately not beautiful