Quote from: SamarkandHow about this:

* role playing game design can be art.  A well-designed RPG system and setting can have an internal logical beauty akin to a superb piece of computer programming or a piece of architecture.

* roleplaying games use the tools of art--performance, imagination, improvisation, etc.--that can enable artistic expression within a gaming session.  It isn't a lasting kind of art, but a particularly inspired bit of performance on the part of a gamer could be artistic if judged according to the impact of the acting and effect on the other participants.

* That said, roleplaying games are tools for art rather than artistic objects in their own right.  Unlike a play, a game doesn't provide a message or an experience of the senses/imagination the way, say, one of Shakespeare's plays does.  One can read Romeo and Juliet and be affected emotionally and intellectually.  A game needs the further creative input of a GM and the players to fulfill any artistic premise inherent in system or setting.  RPG's by themselves are clay, not pots.

I think I can buy that, particularly your first point.

Quote from: mearlsShow me an RPG that could, say, convert a Christian to Islam, or turn a pro-death penalty advocate against his cause, and then maybe I'll talk about an RPG that is art. Until then, RPGs serve primarily as entertainment and to reinforce already existing beliefs, beliefs usually founded on the lofty tenet of conspicuous consumption.

What sort of unreasonable standard is that? So the only things that are art are those things that meet your decidedly narrow definition?

Forgive me calling you a facist.

QuoteThere is something interesting about a piece of art that, because of its interactivity, reveals something about the human condition. It's one thing to read a book and understand what an author has to say. It's another to, through your own actions, form a deeper understanding of the world or come across an insight into the human condition.

That's true. And roleplay as a method has been and will be used for this. But even then, the player/participator is not creating art (as opposed to be an artist, which I found out he could be in english...). He is the consumer of another ones art.
In Adventure Roleplaying Games, there is no statement other than entertainment involved, as mearls pointed out.
And this is my main gripe with anyone interested in convincing me that he is an art creator: Most of the time he is glorifying his consumption. And this, truly is deserving of one of the more harsher words flying around these pages.

Quote from: Serious PaulWhat sort of unreasonable standard is that? So the only things that are art are those things that meet your decidedly narrow definition?

Forgive me calling you a facist.

Ah! So that's what a facist is! I thought it something quite different.

-mice

Quote from: SettembriniThat's true. And roleplay as a method has been and will be used for this. But even then, the player/participator is not creating art (as opposed to be an artist, which I found out he could be in english...). He is the consumer of another ones art.

I don't agree.  An actor's performance can draw out depths from a part that the writer or director didn't know was there.

Playing an RPG is a collaborative, shared experience.  If we postulate that playing an RPG can be an artistic event then the co-operation and input of the players would be necessary.  They would be producers almost as much as they would be consumers

Quote from: SettembriniIn Adventure Roleplaying Games, there is no statement other than entertainment involved, as mearls pointed out.

There's no such thing as pure entertainment.  Every writer, every performer, every artist draws on their own beliefs, prejudices and experiences when they produce something - even if their only goal is to get paid

And even if we count DragonRaid as an aberration, one of the editions of Werewolf had an advert for an environmental charity in the back and the socially liberal agenda of Mage was barely concealed.  Certain Shadowrun sourcebooks have a strong anarchist bias.  I'm sure we can come up with others

Quote from: SettembriniAnd this is my main gripe with anyone interested in convincing me that he is an art creator: Most of the time he is glorifying his consumption. And this, truly is deserving of one of the more harsher words flying around these pages.

What's wrong with consumption? Perhaps you know something I don't. If you were to have said unreasonable consumption or careless consumption we'd be in agreement-but I don't about how you do it, but I consume food to live.

Consumption, like anything else, isn't inheriently evil until man makes it that way.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI don't agree.  An actor's performance can draw out depths from a part that the writer or director didn't know was there.

I would dissagree with the idea the actor is bringing new depths to the charecter that the writer didn't know were there.  The actor is reinterpreting the part, (which is what actors do) and if they (or others) find deeper meaning by looking at the part a certain way then more power to them, but doesn't mean those depths were in the original work or intent of the writer or even the director. (who also interpretes/reinterpretes)

I've seen very well done reinterpretations of shakespeare for instance, ones that turned things on thier heads and gave me a lot to think about, but I'm not going to imply that the actors were tapping into some deep insight that Shakespeare wasn't able to express.

To give a gaming example, in a werewolf larp years ago a glass walker ragabash charecter had died, and we had a funeral.  Some of what was said and done brought tears to at least one eye, but that doesn't mean that we were tapping into what the book was intending.

This is getting long and rambling, doesn't help that I'm at work and fading in and out of work stuff and reading/posting, hopefully some point came through aside from that of my being sleep deprived. (which is true, but not the point the above posting )

Quote from: cnath.rmI would dissagree with the idea the actor is bringing new depths to the charecter that the writer didn't know were there.  The actor is reinterpreting the part, (which is what actors do) and if they (or others) find deeper meaning by looking at the part a certain way then more power to them, but doesn't mean those depths were in the original work or intent of the writer or even the director. (who also interpretes/reinterpretes)

Since when has the writers intention mattered

Sometimes the artist doesn't realise what they are doing when they're doing it.  Example from a different medium.  I was chatting with Simon Bisley at a signing about his book "Illustrations From The Bible" when I mentioned that I thought his depicition of David as the feral kid from Mad Max II was very cool indeed.  He looked at me, looked at the illustration, looked at me again and said "I wondered where I'd got that from!"

A whole new twist on that Bible story (and, incidentally, book is full of stuff like that) and the Biz admitted he hadn't even realised how or why he was doing it

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI've created characters: just as if I was writing a novel.

I've helped develop an existing setting: just as if I was writing a novel in a shared universe (like Known Space or the Cuthulu Mythos).

I've written some brief plot notes - and if I was writing an adventure the plot would be more fully developed

It contains elements - such as the longer pieces of flavour text - that are undeniably literature

It's all been done with a certain degree of craft; I've concentrated on improving my use of English to better communicate my ideas.

So why is Year of the Zombie: Marauders not art?

Not all writing is art, not all painting/drawing is art. Some (most?) writing is functional. A tool. Things like instructions or explanations or descriptions. Art is a craft that becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. Art evokes an emotion or thinking outside of it's original connotations.

Even creative writing isn't nessasarily art. If it purely serves its function (usually entertainment) then it is not art. Just creative writing. Same with pictures, some is art, some is just graphic design or illustration.

In conclusion, not all games are art. Not even games that are very creative with high production values that think they are.

If, after playing a game, you are left pondering about life eternal, the meaning of death or perhaps what alignment a plane of Love would have, you might have just played a game art.

Quote from: KrakaJakIf, after playing a game, you are left pondering about life eternal, the meaning of death or perhaps what alignment a plane of Love would have, you might have just played a game art.

This kind of sums up my attitude. Thanks, Jak!

-mice

Quote from: KrakaJakIf, after playing a game, you are left pondering about life eternal, the meaning of death or perhaps what alignment a plane of Love would have, you might have just played a game art.

Man when did it become a requirement for art to be anything other thanjust enjoyable? When did it become necassary for art to do anything other than be?

I am so glad I am not bound by any of your narrow, snobbish, selfish definitions of art in this thread.

Do you people enjoy enything at all in life?

Quote from: Serious PaulMan when did it become a requirement for art to be anything other thanjust enjoyable? When did it become necassary for art to do anything other than be?

I am so glad I am not bound by any of your narrow, snobbish, selfish definitions of art in this thread.

Do you people enjoy enything at all in life?

If everything is art, then art is a meaningless word, and the world is better off without it.

-mice

Quote from: Serious PaulMan when did it become a requirement for art to be anything other thanjust enjoyable? When did it become necassary for art to do anything other than be?

I am so glad I am not bound by any of your narrow, snobbish, selfish definitions of art in this thread.

Do you people enjoy enything at all in life?

I enjoy quite a lot of things. However there is a difference betweeen ART and ENTERTAINMENT. I agree that any and all crafts (including entertainment, auto repair, and even,dare I say, Message Board discussion!) have the capability to be art. But unless it has exceeded it's medium then it remains  as it was.

Quote from: flyingmiceIf everything is art, then art is a meaningless word, and the world is better off without it.

-mice

Kind of reminds me of Mark Twain's famous destruction of James Fenimore Cooper (which might just be the greatest, funniest literary critique of all time).

An excerpt:

QuoteA work of art?  It has no invention; it has no order, system, sequence, or result; it has no lifelikeness, no thrill, no stir, no seeming of reality; its characters are confusedly drawn, and by their acts and words they prove that they are not the sort of people the author claims that they are; its humor is pathetic; its pathos is funny; its conversations are -- oh! indescribable; its love-scenes odious; its English a crime against the language.
  Counting these out, what is left is Art.  I think we must all admit that.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstKind of reminds me of Mark Twain's famous destruction of James Fenimore Cooper (which might just be the greatest, funniest literary critique of all time).

When I first read this, years ago, I was reduced to helpless tears. The humor is so barbed and vicious that it's painful! This - along with Innocents Abroad and the "skull of Shakespeare as a young man" persuaded me to buy the entire Twain ouvre. Cooper may not be art - though I love him - but Twain's criticism is. My favorite part is the indians dropping off the branch one by one, further and further behind the boat...

-mice