QuoteWhat if you have an audience?

Than congratulations: You know some very weird people.

QuoteAnyway, the point I'm trying to make is that it is entirely possible for gaming to be (performace) art.

That is undebateably true.
Sorry for being on the high road here, but something being an artistic statement doesn`t say anything about it's relevance or quality.

I think I have made clear what I think of people who make their "playing the Japanese in Axis and Allies" an performance exercise.

Of course, art is a relative term, and I'm sure that particular horse will be beaten to death as folks come forth to complain that, to them, their gaming is art.  Fine. It's art to you.

Certainly, we can all agree that books can be works of art (especially if we've seen the Book of Kells), and that theatre is also an art.  What I would object to is either the "suffering artiste" pose or using the moniker of art to falsely elevate one game or playstyle above another.

I mean, look, we have people comparing Forge writers to the Beat Poets.  So you feel it is art.  I will bow at the altar of the Unholy Church of Relativism for the time being.  But when you start comparing your 32-page RPG to literary movements that changed the intellectual landscape of a nation,  I think we might have a perspective problem.  Plenty of people consider their picture of Dogs Playing Poker wall clock art, and many others would tell you they'd pit their Velvet Elvis portrait against anything Goya or Renoir did.  Good for you, but when you start demanding gallery space in the Guggenheim or Tate, that's where we part ways.  We also have the beaten-to-death term "fantasy heartbreaker", which now seems to have mutated to be used to immediately dismiss any game not avant-garde enough.

Yes, games and books can be art.  And if you have fun calling it that, go ahead.  Just don't call me a Philistine for not enjoying that Velvet Elvis.

Total agrement with Mr. The First,

This thread is giving me a mental movie,:ponder:

Players sitting around a table loaded with gaming books, dice, etc...
camera zooms back to show the velvet cords roping off the area and pans around to show the well dressed people walking through the gallery and admiring assorted physical and performance art pieces.

edit: And I should say that, as far as the OP, that I have no prob believing that your book may rise to the level of art. (now if I could only get a game going so that I could justify buying more books... :heh:

Quote from: Zachary The First*Truth*

That's the stuff.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstJust don't call me a Philistine for not enjoying that Velvet Elvis.

"My life with Master": Not art.

Your quote above: Art.

RPGPundit

Perhaps games can be art, but should the players strive to make them art? Does consciously producing and/or "arranging sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty" make the game more fun? Conversely, is it possible to appreciate the asthetic appeal of the act of playing, while not enjoying the game itself? I know you can have fun without creating art, but can you have art without fun?

Personally, I'd rather have more fun and less art. How do others feel?

Quote from: laffingboyConversely, is it possible to appreciate the asthetic appeal of the act of playing, while not enjoying the game itself? I know you can have fun without creating art, but can you have art without fun?

Personally, I'd rather have more fun and less art. How do others feel?

As far as people enjoying playing, but not enjoying the game, I think that can be some people who are there for the time with the group and the game is just incidental to thier enjoyment.  I larped with a guy, ran into him again a few years later, asked him if he gamed anymore, he said no, that he had learned to socialize with people without the game.  (he had also made a choice to keep his "pharmacudical" enjoyment for the weekend so it wouldn't mess with his work...  he had grown up a lot in those years )

Total agrement on wanting fun more then art.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI will bow at the altar of the Unholy Church of Relativism for the time being.

Although it might seem unimportant to you, I thought I should make clear that I am anything but a Relativist.  A = A.  I just think that determining whether or not something is or is not Art is a Truth unobtainable.

QuoteYes, games and books can be art. And if you have fun calling it that, go ahead. Just don't call me a Philistine for not enjoying that Velvet Elvis.

IMHO the best summary I've seen since I became familiar with the various perspectives on roleplaying, either as art or not.

Quote from: laffingboyPerhaps games can be art, but should the players strive to make them art? Does consciously producing and/or "arranging sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty" make the game more fun? Conversely, is it possible to appreciate the asthetic appeal of the act of playing, while not enjoying the game itself? I know you can have fun without creating art, but can you have art without fun?

Up to the people involved.
Up to the people involved.
Although objectively probably possible, highly unlikely.
Yes.

Quote from: cnath.rmAs far as people enjoying playing, but not enjoying the game, I think that can be some people who are there for the time with the group and the game is just incidental to thier enjoyment.

I would, if you are interested, direct your attention to a post by Kuma at her blog called The case against coherent design in which she discusses the work of one Thomas Robertson in conjunction with her own and Forge theories and comes to the conclusion "In the end, the social mechanisms of the group will always triumph - will always hack and reshape - the game being handled."  Thus, she seems to reinforcing the experience of people who are not too worried about the particular rules - who are involved for the socialization that comes with getting together to play a game.

The way I see it, is pretty similar to Yamo's. The only thing that couldn't be artistic about an RPG would be the gameplay. Now that type of play could be artistic, but it would involve changing the game so much that I don't know if it would be an RPG in the conventional sense.

Well, break it up into chunks.

Are the books art?
They're commercial, but they can be art.  The layout can be artistic, the pictures can be artistic, even the (generally) godawful fiction that gets thrown into the books can be artistic.  Needn't be good art, but it's all art.

Painting miniatures and creating dioramas, that's art.

The act of play?

Well, you have a group of people all engaged in a creative activity which, while it produces nothing tangible perhaps a better argument might be that it is more of a 'craft' than an 'art'.

But yeah, it's art, not necessarily 'hang in the louvre' art but it's art.  Things can be both art AND fun you know.

QuotePlayers sitting around a table loaded with gaming books, dice, etc...
camera zooms back to show the velvet cords roping off the area and pans around to show the well dressed people walking through the gallery and admiring assorted physical and performance art pieces.

That's totally art. It's an installation whith an artistic statement. But not rolplaying would be the art, but the installation. The artist is the one who hasd the idea, not the players. Killing cows is not art, but a photograph of a dead cow can be art.

I have to ask... what fucking difference does it make? Arguing "what is art" is a pointless exercise, because one man's art is another man's garbage. Really, it's stupid.

The difference is with the people who want to let everybody know, that their actual play is art. They want to feel doing something culturally worthwhile, instead of admitting that they are "just" entertaining themselves.
From whither they might postulate being better, more mature and more productive individuals than the "non-artistic" gamers. The more mature thing to do is to acknowledge the leisure-ly nature of our beloved hobby.

All the fancy talk about "To me its art, YMMV." is cultural relativism.

"The buck stops here" as the saying goes. I will not and cannot leave such self-elevation through rhetoric tricks go unnoticed. It's devalueing all kinds of honest art, and it is devalueing the rare artistic statements we can find in the greater hobby.


BUT, I will consider seeing actual play being art, if an actual example of an artistic session is posted or shown to me.

Quote from: SettembriniThe difference is with the people who want to let everybody know, that their actual play is art. They want to feel doing something culturally worthwhile, instead of admitting that they are "just" entertaining themselves.
From whither they might postulate being better, more mature and more productive individuals than the "non-artistic" gamers. The more mature thing to do is to acknowledge the leisure-ly nature of our beloved hobby.

All the fancy talk about "To me its art, YMMV." is cultural relativism.

"The buck stops here" as the saying goes. I will not and cannot leave such self-elevation through rhetoric tricks go unnoticed. It's devalueing all kinds of honest art, and it is devalueing the rare artistic statements we can find in the greater hobby.


BUT, I will consider seeing actual play being art, if an actual example of an artistic session is posted or shown to me.

I think you and I agree on the fact that it is ridiculous to consider it as art. However, it also doesn't really matter what you and I think about someone else's interpretation of art. So basically you are simply stating an opinion, and that is fine, but that's all it is.