Quote from: S. John RossHeya! Yeah, we'll see how it goes ... I self-banned from RPGnet because theorists and story-people were flooding Open like raw sewage. I recently learned of this RPGpundit character when Googling to catch up on what happened to Nutkinland, and he seems like a kind of kindred spirit, in a warped sort of way. And then I read Jeff's Gameblog and it says there's a forum by the same guy, so here I am.

Here's hopin' I've finally found a forum for gamers who love gaming. If not, no harm done, and I can keep searching, like Diogenes with a wind-up flashlight

Welcome, btw, S. John!  Good to see you over here!  A lot of us are in the same boat--we love gaming, not gaming hipsters, and want a place to talk about our hobby openly.  We're building up a solid little community here, and it's great to see you checking it out.

-Zachary
Proud Owner of Risus DEE-luxe. :bow:

Quote from: flyingmiceThis kind of sums up my attitude. Thanks, Jak!

-mice

Nah, art doesn't need to stir great feelings it just needs to be appreciated really.  The Mona Lisa doesn't make me consider the nature of the universe, but an article in Nature might.  One's art, one's science Journalism and by your criteria it's the Journalism that's art.

Quote from: Serious PaulNone of you, based on your posting, would last five minutes in a game I run. None of you have the imagination. None of you have the ability to look outside of the box. You're the worst kind of gamers to me.

That's some pretty serious shit-talking, Paul.

QuoteRoll players.

But this?  The whole "I'm a role player, not a ROLL player" thing was old back when Gary Gygax was trying to convince us that all the cool kids play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.  You can do better than that.
 
You want to find art in a plastic bag floating in the wind and I will be right there with you.  The world is an amazing and wondrous place full of a thousand delights we miss every day because we don't open our eyes to the majesty around us.  Rock on for reckonizing that fact.  But I'm pretty sure that is NOT what anyone here is fighting against.  I get my dander up at calling RPGs art not because I find it impossible to derive meaning and wonder from the games and their play, but because the hobby seems loaded with self-important jackholes who want to prop up their egos by calling their hobby an art.  Please note that I'm not saying you are one of them!

Me, I see just as much art in a well-run or well-written RPG as I see in a well-executed professional wrestling match or in a particularly good episode of a cartoon like The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy.  But in the normal course of a day I'm not going to call any of them art.  If that makes me a cretin or a philistine or, god forbid, a "roll player" that's fine.  I just find "art" a handier word when applied more specifically to things I might see on a stage or in a museum.  That's simple-minded, but maybe I'm a simple man.  I'd rather be simple than one of the jerkoffs who thinks being involved in gaming makes them an artiste.

Quote from: jrientsYou want to find art in a plastic bag floating in the wind and I will be right there with you.

The plastic bag makes no claims to be art, nor is it designed to be art.

-mice

Quote from: SettembriniThe problem with the whole thing is:

WHY would anybody insist on calling it art, AND have that acknowledged by everybody else? What are the motives behind that?

This is the real question and the real problem here. As soon as anyone starts claiming their game (or their scenario) is art (especially if the collorary, spoken or unspoken is that other people's aren't) they're immediately suspect (and, IMO, rightly so: people claiming they do art while other people do game or hobby is awfully close to saying "I role-play. They roll-play.")

So what is the value of declaring something art?

I'll give you mine:
1. Saying something is 'art' usually means it evokes something emotionally real in the audience.

2. Saying something is 'art' usually means it is well crafted for asthetics as well as function.

3. Saying something is 'art' means, usually means the speaker thinks very highly of it (without qualifiers, of course).

I think these are viable terms for an RPG session. I think that RPGs can get "emotionally real" for the participants--at least as much as a good drama. I mean, I don't expect everyone to be weeping or wailing during a session or anything--but I think it's legitimate to have an RPG session end on a satisfyingly somber note that leaves people pondering.

I think that if the function of an RPG is fun then it is possible to craft an RPG session beyond the baseline entry for fun. I've seen GM's do some clever things I've appreciated (a group of NPCs named after characters in The Crucible--a bit of symbolism that I only got later and was wonderfully significant to the game). I mean: no, that's no Picasso or anything even like that. But it's an element of craftmanship above the baseline necessary for an enjoyable game. I could consider it an artistic endeavor.

As for the third, I've got problems with that. There are a lot of ways to say you think something is cool without trying to elevate it. Without established critics and a body of recognized canon, the evaluation of X-as-art and Y-as-not-art is simple opinion. This (as has been noted) is what happened with the Fantasy Heartbreaker thing (the term has simply been used as a way to say "I don't like these games.")

Finally: maybe an RPG book *could* be art. I have no idea, nor an spin on that (I suspect that art in an RPG book is illustration and also can be art). But I firmly believe that whatever the case, the rules and such are the medium. The actual play is the "artifact."

-Marco

Quote from: Serious PaulI can't imagine how. Especially considering your very narrow definition of what art and entertainment is.

Ummm, how narrow is that? Entertainment is ummm .. things that are entertaining? Art is ANY craft (including Entertainment) that moves beyond the sum of it's parts. If that is a narrow definition than I could probably yodel in the width of you hyper-unretentive anus.

Quote from: Serious PaulYes. But art can be entertaining can't it? See the problem here is you're assuming we will all accept your very subjective opinion. And maybe some of these wankers will.  And you guys can pat each other on the back and talk about how sart you think you really are, but some of us dissent.

Thank you for putting words in my fingers. Of course people are going to agree with me. It's because I'm right and you are wrong.

But really, dissent all you want. However, maybe next time you should try to read and understand what was written. I'd hate for you to take this bigoted NARROW approach to real life problems.

Quote from: Serious PaulArt does not have to be exclusive from entertaining. In fact, is there any other reason for art for us as consumers? (Obviously as creators it is different, but then I don't expect anyone here to undertsand that.)


And who judges that? You?

Who the hell suggested this? What the hell are you ranting about! I didn't mean to bump your soap box. But I certainly don't agree that ALL entertainment is art. Pipe down you're scaring my children.

Quote from: Serious PaulNone of you, based on your posting, would last five minutes in a game I run. None of you have the imagination. None of you have the ability to look outside of the box. You're the worst kind of gamers to me.

Roll players.

That's ok, I don't want to play with you anyway

You....you...De-Protagonizing Rail-Roader!!!





Oooooooooooooooh!

Quote from: flyingmiceThe plastic bag makes no claims to be art, nor is it designed to be art.

The art is in recongnising that the article is beautiful and recontextualising it

e.g. Duchamp's Readymades

Quote from: MoriartyI don't think the word is diluted so much as there is probably some historical language connection between 'artist' and 'artisan', the latter of which has been used to describe folks like the furniture maker, stonemason and craftsmen of the sort.

Yeah, it's the opposite of dilution. "Art" originally meant just about any human endeavor ... it's just a separation of the works of god (nature) from the works of man (art). Hence, words like artisan, artifice, artificial. And hence old-timey phrases like "the healer's art" to describe the work of a physician.

I think the most reasonable modern definition is just "any work or act of creative expression." Crappy or great, shallow or hoity-toity. In the contemporary (non-bluehair) sense, art has no inherent value, only individual works do.

Attaching the concept to quality is a holdover from trends that came out of old beliefs in aristocratic superiority to those of common blood (hence "high art" versus "popular art," etc). Bluehaired hey-nonnny-nonsense; nothing worth preserving, except to mock it.

People who share certain views and values can stratify art by quality. To put it another way:

Any artistic expression has objective virtues, judging is subjective though.

Dead Cow flies from skyscraper = art

virtues/attributes: gory, unexpected, gruesome
themes: death, killing, senselessness, lemon curry

I dislike gory, find unexpected art boring, there is no subtleness involved, so to me it is cheap shock art crap.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople who share certain views and values can stratify art by quality. [...] so to me it is cheap shock art crap.

Yeah, exactly. I feel the same way about some RPG material, in fact

I just finished having to define art in another forum. Rather than reposting everything, I'll just give you a link.

http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?10371

Is that a link? If not, just copy-paste into your nav bar.
Fast forward to where we begin discussing what qualifies as art, and the three critereon I put down.
For those of you who care to notice, I DID change my mind from my original point... unlike many, I actually gather my thoughts through discussion, experience, and observation, rather than deciding beforehand and defending my position. I do, however, stand by my opinions on art. No amount of discussion will overrule my personal experience as an artist.

Art should be aesthetically pleasing or interesting.
Art should be artificial (if that's too redundant "manufactured" will suffice).
Art should be intentional and original.

The game itself better fits the critereon than the gameplay.
Gameplay is closer to the reading of a book, watching of a play, or appreciation of a painting.
From a DM's perspective, there is art. I'm not diminishing the DMs work. Because DMing is fucking HARD.

On an unrelated side-note, the problem with calling RPGs art is not only the self-flattery... it also conceals the primary function of the game. The minute you call an RPG art is the minute you start expecting it to live up to artistic scrutiny. As much as I love the game, you just can't do that. Because (generally speaking) you don't play art.

Quote from: SettembriniI dislike gory, find unexpected art boring, there is no subtleness involved, so to me it is cheap shock art crap.

But still art.

I really have to work hard at resisting the urge to call you 'Semprini'.


OUT!

Quote from: beejazzThe game itself better fits the critereon than the gameplay.
Gameplay is closer to the reading of a book, watching of a play, or appreciation of a painting.
From a DM's perspective, there is art. I'm not diminishing the DMs work. Because DMing is fucking HARD.

On an unrelated side-note, the problem with calling RPGs art is not only the self-flattery... it also conceals the primary function of the game. The minute you call an RPG art is the minute you start expecting it to live up to artistic scrutiny. As much as I love the game, you just can't do that. Because (generally speaking) you don't play art.

I'm liking this, makes a lot of sense to me, nicely put.

Thanks. It just bugs me when people call everything remotely awesome "art". Art is awesome. Roleplaying is awesome. Art is not roleplaying. There is room for more than one awesome.

Quote from: beejazzArt should be aesthetically pleasing or interesting.
Art should be artificial (if that's too redundant "manufactured" will suffice).
Art should be intentional and original.

The game itself better fits the critereon than the gameplay.
Gameplay is closer to the reading of a book, watching of a play, or appreciation of a painting.
From a DM's perspective, there is art. I'm not diminishing the DMs work. Because DMing is fucking HARD.

Huh?  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.  

Quote from: beejazzOn an unrelated side-note, the problem with calling RPGs art is not only the self-flattery... it also conceals the primary function of the game. The minute you call an RPG art is the minute you start expecting it to live up to artistic scrutiny. As much as I love the game, you just can't do that. Because (generally speaking) you don't play art.

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.