Quote from: beejazzStill 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

Who's criteria are these? Just yours? The only correct ones? The only internally consistent ones?

What if I add "Has to stand the test of time?" Or "Must glorify God?" How do we know if those are any more correct than "Audience?"

-Marco

Quote from: beejazzArt 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.

I think this has been fairly well hashed out, but I'll try to summarize my view.  My definition of art matches fairly well the Britannica definition: "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others".  So, to be more specific:

(1) It must be a creative work -- which implies intentional/artificial creation as well as originality.  

(2) It must be created with a sense of aesthetics.  That doesn't mean beautiful -- but it must evoke intellectual and/or emotional interest through the senses.  

(3) There is no requirement on the primary purpose.  In other words, the intent of the artist is irrelevant.  The artist may be primarily trying to push for some social or political change.  The artist may be primarily trying to make money.  The artist may simply do it because she likes doing it.  The artist might say that she's doing "art for art's sake" but really be trying to impress someone to get a date.  None of that matters.  You don't have to read the mind of the artist to tell if something is art.  

(4) There is no requirement for audience, because that would make the identity of something as art external to the thing itself.  So, for example, a painting might not be art because only the people who worked on it saw it -- and then years later the painting transforms into art when it is sold.  A collection of poems might not be art because the poet doesn't show them to anyone, but become art when they are found and published after her death.  If someone published a work without the artist's knowledge, then the artist and others might not think it's art but others do.  

A qualification regarding audience creates IMO ridiculous quibbling for artistic works.  It's not necessary, and it creates the bizarre process of the exact same thing changing from "not-art" to "art".

I'm pretty much with S. John on this topic. As I posted somewhat at length over on John McLintock's blog, the use of the term "art" smacks of a power-play.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm pretty much with S. John on this topic. As I posted somewhat at length over on John McLintock's blog, the use of the term "art" smacks of a power-play.

I agree.

Almost always to comes across to me like a chip that's on the shoulder of a role-player, one who can't live with the idea that it's just a game and that it only matters to him and those like him.

I'd hate to draw my self worth from such shallow waters.

So here's where I may want to disagree with you, Brian. I prefer not to think in terms of "just a game book" or "just a game session" any more than I'd think of the Mona Lisa as "just a bunch of pigment smeared on wood".

I think John K. has tended to argue in favor of the "art" term, but while I disagree with that, our correspondences confirm that we're on the same wavelength beyond the terminology. In my own words: there are all sorts of things people do to entertain themselves and each other, and all sorts of things that we value as things-in-themselves beyond their purely economic or functional role. And all of these things--comic books, knitting circles, the view from your kitchen window--have to stand or fall on their own merits, not by virtue of being included in one artificial category or another.

Quote from: gleichmanI agree.

Almost always to comes across to me like a chip that's on the shoulder of a role-player, one who can't live with the idea that it's just a game and that it only matters to him and those like him.

I'd hate to draw my self worth from such shallow waters.

Conversely, I'm curious about the chip on your shoulder.  I mean, why do you care if I call some RPG art?  Why is this a controversial point which you feel the need to argue?  Does it impact you negatively?  

I have a simple consistency issue here.  My hobby is RPGs.  I've also done amateur theater, singing, and a bit of instrumental music -- but RPGs are primary now.  As I commented on John McLintock's blog, I'm stuck as to suggesting any other creative, imaginative endeavor which is categorically never considered art.  Can you suggest one?

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo here's where I may want to disagree with you, Brian. I prefer not to think in terms of "just a game book" or "just a game session" any more than I'd think of the Mona Lisa as "just a bunch of pigment smeared on wood".

I would imagine that to you, my campaign and my rules (of which I've placed a lot of work and value greatly) is "just someone else's game". A fact that doesn't upset me in the least.

It is that viewpoint and the 'RPG as Art' crowd refusal to accept. That is what I was putting across as "just a game". But by labeling it Art, they insist on it having a value beyond themselves. Pure self-promotion.

If the thing has value, it has value under it's correct and proper name. The Mona Lisa is still the Mona Lisa- if one calls it a painting or anything else.

QuoteI've also done amateur theater, singing, and a bit of instrumental music

These activities neither are art.

Quote from: jhkimConversely, I'm curious about the chip on your shoulder.  I mean, why do you care if I call some RPG art?  Why is this a controversial point which you feel the need to argue?  Does it impact you negatively?  

Because I'm a player of rpgs, and even a sometime designer of the same. And I consider this to reflect badly upon me.

Quote from: jhkimConversely, I'm curious about the chip on your shoulder.  I mean, why do you care if I call some RPG art?  Why is this a controversial point which you feel the need to argue?  Does it impact you negatively?  

I have a simple consistency issue here.  My hobby is RPGs.  I've also done amateur theater, singing, and a bit of instrumental music -- but RPGs are primary now.  As I commented on John McLintock's blog, I'm stuck as to suggesting any other creative, imaginative endeavor which is categorically never considered art.  Can you suggest one?

Religion.
Science.
Reconstruction of war-torn third world countries.
My definitions may be narrow,
but yours are unneccessarily BROAD.

Quote from: SettembriniThese activities neither are art.

Wrong.
Sorry. These *are* art.
There are creative arts and preforming arts.
They are both still arts, though.

I think someone in a discussion on the 20x20 room put it best. When people argue over whether something is "art", it's usually because what they have in mind is the statement "This is art, therefore...", and it's the part after the "therefore" that causes the disagreement.

"Therefore it's something we can focus on and try to learn ways to improve our enjoyment of it." Check.
"Therefore I can defend myself against criticisms of being obscure or in bad taste, because Art answers to higher standards." Nope, the word "Art" doesn't get you off the hook.
"Therefore people should pay attention to my game." Double nope.
"Therefore people should buy my game on faith, in hope they'll be able to live up to it." This is laughable. BTW, note that this isn't the same thing as buying something on faith because someone else, or the general populace, has recommended it. Or because you've enjoyed previous works by the same creator.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen"Therefore it's something we can focus on and try to learn ways to improve our enjoyment of it." Check.
"Therefore I can defend myself against criticisms of being obscure or in bad taste, because Art answers to higher standards." Nope, the word "Art" doesn't get you off the hook.
"Therefore people should pay attention to my game." Double nope.
"Therefore people should buy my game on faith, in hope they'll be able to live up to it." This is laughable. BTW, note that this isn't the same thing as buying something on faith because someone else, or the general populace, has recommended it. Or because you've enjoyed previous works by the same creator.

OK, fair enough, though you'll admit, I hope that your "therefore" answers are answers which you made up -- not anything suggested by me or other posters here?  We should look at it the other way, too, though.  Those of you who are opposed to RPGs being called art -- what do you think that implies?  i.e. "RPGs are not art, therefore:"  

blah

For example, Brian: how do you think it will reflect better on you personally if RPGs are not called art?  What does that buy you?

Quote from: jhkimOK, fair enough, though you'll admit, I hope that your "therefore" answers are answers which you made up -- not anything suggested by me or other posters here?

Oh, they're definitely made up by me for the purposes of this discussion. I haven't read over everyone else's posts here carefully enough to see if they've implied anything like my examples. But I have seen something like my examples pop up from time to time; just to avoid having to hunt it down and justify it though, I'll point to the jerk that John McLintock described in his blog entry.

Can anything be art? When it is done well and it engages the viewer. Emotional involvement in a created experience is what makes the difference. The Mona Lisa is a created experience which people can get emotionally involved in. The same with Guernica. Different painters, different styles, different aims, but both elicit emotional involvement.

A few years back I went to see Sean K. Reynold's gal Willow in a dance recital. The last performance was an ensemble piece, a created experience. We got caught up. We lost ourselves in the moment. For those brief minutes we were witness to a work of art.

Art doesn't have to be permanent, it just has to be. The better done the created experience, the better the chance the viewer will lose himself in it.

And not just the viewer. The listener, or taster, or the smeller as well. Get yourself a good copy of Legend of a Mind (The Moody Blues). Listen to it. Do not play it as background music. Do not analyze it. Listen to it and let yourself be taken by it. As it plays let go.

That's the difference between art and not-art. With art you can let go. With art you can get caught up and taken beyond yourself. Not art doesn't allow that. Guernica is art because you get caught up in the experience it represents. The poker playing dogs can be considered art, because you can get caught up in the humor and the commentary lying behind it. A velvet painting of Elvis is not art because it speaks of nothing.

That's what it comes down to in the end. Art says something, and lets you lose yourself in it. An RPG can never be art. At best it can be a tool kit for creating art. But the play, through the act of creation and the engagement of the players, can become art.

Lets use RPGs for what they do best, aid us in providing a night's entertainment. And if a work of art results, then enjoy the experience for what it is, and not worry about the state of the tool that helped us create it.