TheRPGSite

I'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 (http://www.ukg-publishing.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=88) not art?

It's imaginative or creative writing, therefore it is literature, therefore it is art.

It's not Shakespeare however. :mischief:

Of course something being art doesn't stop it having another function, designer furniture can be classed as art, you still park your arse on it, more often than you stand appricating it's form. I would say the function of Year of the Zombie: Marauders is more important than it's form. Sure you can read it just as a piece of literature, but you get more out of it if you used if for a Roleplaying Game, it's function.

Writing, as all crafts, has a healthy dose of art in it, if it is good.
Playing RPGs with your buddys should not, and will never be art, in any high cultural sense.

So maybe your writing is art.

Playing an CoC Adventure is not.

I see this forum is still jumping with posters. :(

Quote from: Bagpuss...Of course something being art doesn't stop it having another function, designer furniture can be classed as art, you still park your arse on it, more often than you stand appricating it's form. I would say the function of Year of the Zombie: Marauders is more important than it's form. Sure you can read it just as a piece of literature, but you get more out of it if you used if for a Roleplaying Game, it's function.

I've got to agree with this - RPGs are (IMO) primarily tools. By and large, the function of a game is to be played - enjoyment derived from the extras (the writing, the milieu, etc) is secondary in nature.

Quote from: EnkhiduI've got to agree with this - RPGs are (IMO) primarily tools. By and large, the function of a game is to be played - enjoyment derived from the extras (the writing, the milieu, etc) is secondary in nature.

I agree with that. I'd also throw in that RPGs are just games and shouldn't be taken much more seriously than Monopoly or Scrabble. I say "much more" because there is a certain level of extra attention and devotion that are required in most RPGs, but some folks take that to ridiculous levels.

Quote from: BagpussI see this forum is still jumping with posters. :(

Give me time. I haven't even started any changes yet (except for one). Over the next few days you should see some pretty radical changes to the Forums, and some new statements and then a big campaign to get things rolling.

RPGPundit

I think Settembrini got it right. A game can include art and can probably even be art, but game play is not art.

Quote from: YamoI think Settembrini got it right. A game can include art and can probably even be art, but game play is not art.

I agree with that. Game play as art is basically theatre or acting.

Quote from: SettembriniWriting, as all crafts, has a healthy dose of art in it, if it is good.

Understatement of the year.

Quote from: SettembriniPlaying RPGs with your buddys should not, and will never be art, in any high cultural sense.

Emphasis mine.  And you are very, very wrong.  You'd only be simply wrong IMHO, had you not used the bolded statements.  "Should not" and "will never be" implies 2 things.  1.  That you have absolute knowledge, which you don't, because no one does.  2.  That there is no room for dissenting opinion nor discussion.  

That's wrong, you should leave room for debate.  You should stick to your guns of course, but denying discussion doesn't do anyone any good.

Quote from: SettembriniSo maybe your writing is art.

Playing an CoC Adventure is not.

Writing is art, we agree.  Playing CoC can be art, just as improvisational acting can be art...which is really all good roleplaying is.

Quote from: YamoI think Settembrini got it right. A game can include art and can probably even be art, but game play is not art.

What if you have an audience?

You are treading into the realms of cultural relativism here. Of course, throwing a cow from a skyscraper can be "art". With an audience, anything can be an artistic statement.
But the big difference is the "sender´s" intention: When I play my Traveller character, I do not have the intention to make an artistic statement.

If you for yourselves have the intention to make an artistic statement while playing your character, then technically that would be "art".
I pity those who do so.

Don´t forget: Semantics aside, there is good and relevant art, and there is art nobody ever notices and for the better of humanity. If some fucker thinks his impersonation of Balduin, the tenth level Wizard, should be taken as an artistic statement, he has my utter and bewildered blessing. As well as lost any respect I have for him.

In this line of relativist thinking, even postings  are "art". So stop semantics and start to see clear.

Quote from: SettembriniYou are treading into the realms of cultural relativism here. Of course, throwing a cow from a skyscraper can be "art". With an audience, anything can be an artistic statement.
But the big difference is the "sender´s" intention: When I play my Traveller character, I do not have the intention to make an artistic statement.

If you for yourselves have the intention to make an artistic statement while playing your character, then technically that would be "art".
I pity those who do so.

Don´t forget: Semantics aside, there is good and relevant art, and there is art nobody ever notices and for the better of humanity. If some fucker thinks his impersonation of Balduin, the tenth level Wizard, should be taken as an artistic statement, he has my utter and bewildered blessing. As well as lost any respect I have for him.

In this line of relativist thinking, even postings  are "art". So stop semantics and start to see clear.

Wow. That's one of the more high handed things I've ever had directed at me.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that it is entirely possible for gaming to be (performace) art. It's not my cup of tea,  but I guaran-damn-tee that its a type of gaming that others do/have/will enjoy. More importantly, its useless for me to care about what type of game they enjoy if those games don't affect me.

As far as this:

Quote from: YouSo stop semantics and start to see clear.

Fuck off, please.

It depends on how you roleplay. I have seen some roleplayers take it to the level of performance art, so it can be done, but I don't personally care for it.

I know the danger of using definitions, but I'll try this approach to attempt to show that both answers are (in)correct.

Art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

Now a gaming session, in almost every system of which I am aware, fits the first part of the definition - that it, the players are consciously producing sounds, colors, etc.

It's the second part of the definition - "that affects the sense of beauty" that causes problems.  Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the answer to the original question is completely subjective.  It could be that an observer feels a particular session is not very artistic.  Another observer might believe that the same session is truly a work of art.  Yet another observer might never consider the possibility that a gaming session could even be art.

In the end, I think those involved in the discussion/argument will always be talking past each other.  IMHO - it's a moot point.

And as a last note - no definition I could find even implies that art is about the intention of the person creating it....YMMV

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 (http://www.snake.net/people/paul/kells/image/kell1bmp)), 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 (http://glyphpress.com/talk/?p=38).  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 (http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/601-5211745-8031319?asin=B000F7V5RK&AFID=Froogle&LNM=B000F7V5RK%7CDogs_Playing_Poker_14%22_Bubble_Clock&nAID=14110944&ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001) art, and many others would tell you they'd pit their Velvet Elvis portrait (http://www.thevelvetstore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=vs02&Category_Code=13) 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 (http://blog.kumapageworks.org/blog/?p=137) 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.

Naughty me, creating a contentious thread and then going on holiday.  Oh well, I'm back now

Supplimentary question: What if the GM intends his or her game to make an artistic statement?

When I first read Hold At All Costs: Zero and then Year of the Zombie, I had a series of realisations

I could use this adventure to create a game that gave my players a feel for what it means to be a special forces soldier
I could use this sourcebook to create a game that shows my players what it means to be in a survival situation

The choices that they make and their consequences would give them insight into what it's like to be a person in those sort of extreme situations and give them insight into the "human condition"

Now that's art - isn't it?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonNow that's art - isn't it?

Why does it matter if I think, or anyone else here thinks, it's Art? Do you think it's Art?  Yes? Great! No? Great!

It's interesting how there is a push not just to allow an individual to think aspects of gaming are Art, but to convince others that it is. Why is it important if anyone else believes it's Art?

The problem I have with debating "Are RPGs art?" on a message board is that it's hard for all parties involved to agree to definitions for either RPGs or art.  I'm approaching 25 years in the hobby and I still haven't seen a definition for RPGs that completely satisfies me.  And "what is art" is a debate so cliche that the Monty Python crew riffed on it at least once.  I think this topic would be better handled in a "Pistols at Dawn" disputation, with only two people properly equipped to debate both RPGs and art.

IMO:

RPGs are a *Craft not a form art.



*using this definition of Craft:to make or manufacture (an object, objects, product, etc.) with skill and careful attention to detail.

Quote from: FeanorIt's interesting how there is a push not just to allow an individual to think aspects of gaming are Art, but to convince others that it is. Why is it important if anyone else believes it's Art?

Well firstly, I find the whole field of Aesthetics and the boundary between art and craft fascinating

Secondly, I want to produce the best product I can possibly can.  If there's a way of using existing theories of theatre and literature to improve what I'm doing (and I'm convinced that there is) then I'd like to attempt this

Thirdly, several people on this board are convinced that RPGs cannot be art and I'm a naturally contrary bastard

Quote from: McrowIMO:

RPGs are a *Craft not a form art.



*using this definition of Craft:to make or manufacture (an object, objects, product, etc.) with skill and careful attention to detail.

Lots of objects and crafts are artistic, even functional ones.

Quote from: ZalmoxisLots of objects and crafts are artistic, even functional ones.

Yes, but that is why I used the above definition. Most craft items of any type are not consider art by the majority of people. Generally the creator of an object considers his creation "art", but to the buyer it is just a trinket.

So in my case I understand a game designer refering to his work as "art", but to me it just a cool game (trinket) that I want.

Quote from: McrowYes, but that is why I used the above definition. Most craft items of any type are not consider art by the majority of people. Generally the creator of an object considers his creation "art", but to the buyer it is just a trinket.

So in my case I understand a game designer refering to his work as "art", but to me it just a cool game (trinket) that I want.

I'll be honest with you. From my own point of view, I have never seen a single RPG or played in a single RPG setting that I considered "art" in any form. However, I can see how someone with a sufficiently broad definition of art could apply it to those things... even though I personally don't feel that way.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonWell firstly, I find the whole field of Aesthetics and the boundary between art and craft fascinating

Secondly, I want to produce the best product I can possibly can.  If there's a way of using existing theories of theatre and literature to improve what I'm doing (and I'm convinced that there is) then I'd like to attempt this

Thirdly, several people on this board are convinced that RPGs cannot be art and I'm a naturally contrary bastard

Firstly: Well...I've got nothing to this one.  Good-on-ya, Mate.

Secondly: I obviously can't fault your desire to produce a better product, nor your desire to use theater and literature theories as inspiration, if that's your cup of tea.  However, does it matter whether other people believe RPG's are Art, or even can be, for you to pursue these goals?

Thirdly: Ahhh...well...contrarian arguments can be fun, until someone loses an eye, that is.

Quote from: BagpussIt's not Shakespeare however. :mischief:

I can't resist it. I tried, honestly!

Shakespeare isn't even Shakespeare! (Assuming any of you even agree Shakespeare is "art")

Heh. Sorry. I tried.

The 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?

OK, the gm WANTS to make an artistic statement on how the soldier behaves in a war? For starters, this isn't art, it's just a THEMATIC dimension of RPGs that's basically to be found in any RPG, with differing amounts. So still he wants it to be art. If nobody in his audience acknowledges it as such, it is at the very least irrrelevant, and inconsequential art statement.

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?

What are the motives behind arguing about it? :p

That's easy:
I doubt the motives of anybody calling it art.

In A theory of fun for game design (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Theory-Fun-Game-design/dp/1932111972/ref=sr_11_1/202-0018287-4799058?ie=UTF8), Koster freely admits that one of the reasons that he's writing the book is an attempt to show to his father that what he's doing with his life (writing computer games) is a worthwhile human activity.  I guess that's the sort of thing you mean by being suspicious of the motives of anyone claiming that writing games is an art.

In this book, he argues that one of the major ways that human beings learn things is by playing games and that learning things triggers the receptors in the brain that let us know that something is fun.  He also tracks the development of computer games and shows that there is a common theme among the better (more engaging, more "fun") modern games.  A narrative or story that develops, expands and becomes more complex as the gameplay develops, expands and becomes more complex.  This goes for "twitch" games, real time strategy games, CRPGs (obviously) - even "God games" like SimCity or Civilization (except that in many God Games, you're writing your own story, your strategy about how you'll complete this game).  As you continue to learn - both about the story and about the intricacies of playing the game, you continue to have fun.  If the game stops developing, if you run out of things to learn, it becomes a grind  (think about the end stages of many CRPGs where you're just killing things in order to be a high enough level to beat the final boss).

He concludes by suggesting that a way that computer games may develop is by investigating the way that narrative is used in film, literature and theatre and seeing how these techniques can be applied to computer games.  I suggest that those of us who write social, storytelling games like tabletop RPGs should do the same.

I'd have to re-read to check, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't make any claims that computer games are art.  What he does do is suggest that if the craft continues to improve and if people write games with an intention of communicating something about the human condition then computer games may reach the status of an art form.

Why is this an aspirational goal? Look at comics.  Will Eisner told an anecdote about being hit with a rolled-up newspaper by Rube Goldburg while the man shouted "Comic's aren't art! You're in vaudeville and don't you ever forget it!"  Will disagreed and continued to make the Spirit the best work of art he could possibly make, inspiring a generation to turn "the funny pages" into "sequential art".  Now we have respected writers from film, television and literature writing monthlys for DC and Marvel and (this is the important bit) not considering that they're slumming while they're doing it.

Wouldn't it be cool if Joss Wheldon had written parts of the Serenity RPG? And used the things he'd learnt while writing for RPGs to inform and develop the stuff he's doing in his day job (just like Neil Gaiman uses the things he's learnt while writing for film and literature now he's doing comics again).  A boy can dream can't he?

People are asking for a definition of art, so here's one: Any artifact or activity intended to communicate a subtextual message.

This excludes simple works of craft, but includes masterworks like the Medici Goblets, a Masamume katana and Grayson Perry's ceramics (an interesting choice of examples there, but hey!).  It also excludes simple "buy this product - it's the best" advertising, but includes the more complex and "artistic" campaigns like the Guiness adverts or the ninties "Gillette - The Best A Man Can Get" campaign.

Now is there anything that is included in that definition that is definately not art?

(other than role-playing games ;) )

QuoteI guess that's the sort of thing you mean by being suspicious of the motives of anyone claiming that writing games is an art.

Let me take you back to one of my very first statements re-uttered in different words:

Writing anything can be art. As can be the crafting of anything. Using the artifact is not. Pipe smoking is not art, and RP-Gaming truly isn`t neither, except in the most cultural relativist thinking.
Doom level design might have been artistic, when Sandy Petersen did it, playing doom is never art (created by the player) in any meaningful way.

What I doubt are those fuckers, we call them Swine once in a while, who claim to be artistes just by playing, e.g. w/o any real effort or mental sweatwork involved. They are even devalueing your claim or aspiration to artistry.

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?

Agreed.

Although I will say that I feel art can take many different forms, and doesn't require audience, in my humblest of opinions, or acknowledgement.

I see my Game Mastering as art form. I put a lot of love, and care, and creativity into it. I make maps by hand, I create worlds from nothing. To me it's an art, even if it isn't high art.

IIRC Gary Gygax asks a rhetorical question at the front of the original Dungeon Master's Guide:
 "DMing, is it an art or a science?"

I'm a big fan of the man, but my answer to the question is "Neither, trying to shoehorn this new activity into either or both labels does a disservice to all three.  Let DMing stand or fall on its own merits, not whether it falls into some pre-existing category of highly regarded human activity."

Quote from: SettembriniWriting anything can be art. As can be the crafting of anything. Using the artifact is not.

Gotcha! ;)

So what a playwright does can be described as art, but what the cast and the director of the play do cannot?

QuoteSo what a playwright does can be described as art, but what the cast and the director of the play do cannot?

Basically, yes. There are times, when there is creative freedom, there can be an imrovised artistic expression. But only the playwright is actually an artist.

EDIT: Maybe there is a language problem involved in our discussion. Your "gotcha" makes me think you were totally sure in your point. I'm abit puzzled, as for me it is totally clear, that a director is not an artist most of the time.

I just checked, and there are a lot of words in english, which have "artist" in them, where I never would have thought:

con
graphic
make up
tatoo
comic-strip

-artists.

So maybe the word has a broader meaning.

Settembrini, I think one could argue that 'artist' is so prevalent in English because the word is being diluted to mean any practioner of a skill or craft.

Quote from: jrientsSettembrini, I think one could argue that 'artist' is so prevalent in English because the word is being diluted to mean any practioner of a skill or craft.

Yeah, but with the exception of con and make-up artists, I think the suffix can more than apply to the rest of Settimbrini's list.

I'm sure you can find make-up artists that will take umbrage at your statement.

As would con artists.

Quote from: jrientsSettembrini, I think one could argue that 'artist' is so prevalent in English because the word is being diluted to mean any practioner of a skill or craft.

I 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.

Quote from: SettembriniBasically, yes. There are times, when there is creative freedom, there can be an imrovised artistic expression. But only the playwright is actually an artist.

EDIT: Maybe there is a language problem involved in our discussion. Your "gotcha" makes me think you were totally sure in your point. I'm abit puzzled, as for me it is totally clear, that a director is not an artist most of the time.

Yeah, there must be a language problem.  I know a number of theatrical professionals who (some actors, one director) who consider what they do to be art.

Do you have any idea of how many ways you can say "To be, or not to be..."?  How many ways Hamlet has been staged?

I think a game could be art. At their core games are interactive. There 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.

I think that, right now, the typical RPG has as much to with art as a corporate PowerPoint presentation or a grade school teacher's math lesson. Sure, they all involve writing and interaction, but is this anything more than an exchange of information?

Show 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.

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.

Nice one.  RPGs haven't had their Shakespeare, their Voltaire or their El Greco yet.  Perhaps they never will

However, because they encourage you to put yourself inside the mind of another character, to view things from their perspective, the capacity of RPGs to alter the way that the consumer views the world should, in theory, be greater than most mediums.

To the best of my knowledge, the only game that has explicitly tried to do this is DragonRaid, though some of the oWoD games (particularly Werewolf and Mage) have a strong anti-technology, pro-environment bias.  I haven't read the game myself, but, unless the Pundit is completely mis-representing Blue Rose, that game might be another.

Something to think about guys.  BADD could be right - we really could be warping the fragile minds of teenagers :p

Here's my obtuse reply: I don't even consider RPG art as art. It's illustration.

-mice

How 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.

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 :D )

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 (http://www.ukg-publishing.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=88) 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 (http://users.telerama.com/%7Ejoseph/cooper/cooper.html) (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.

:D

Quote from: Zachary The FirstKind of reminds me of Mark Twain's famous destruction of James Fenimore Cooper (http://users.telerama.com/%7Ejoseph/cooper/cooper.html) (which might just be the greatest, funniest literary critique of all time).:D

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... :D

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceWhen 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... :D

-mice

Lord, yes.  That still makes me laugh.   And for Settembrini, may I present "The Awful German Language (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/twain.german.html)".
 :heh: :p

Not to get too far off topic, but The Innocents Abroad, Roughing It, and Life on The Mississippi are 3 of my favorite books of all time.  Sharp humor, a perfect sense of precisely which word will be funniest, and one of the keenest literary eyes of all time make his books still riotous, even well over 100+ years later.

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

I have no idea who said that everything was art, or even most things. Did I miss it somewhere in this thread?

It is certainly not my position that everything is art. My position is that most pf the people in this thread have too narrow a definition of art.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstNot to get too far off topic, but The Innocents Abroad, Roughing It, and Life on The Mississippi are 3 of my favorite books of all time.  Sharp humor, a perfect sense of precisely which word will be funniest, and one of the keenest literary eyes of all time make his books still riotous, even well over 100+ years later.

His description of the coyote in Roughing It still makes me laugh when I think of it... :D

-mice

Quote from: KrakaJakI enjoy quite a lot of things.

I can't imagine how. Especially considering your very narrow definition of what art and entertainment is.

QuoteHowever there is a difference betweeen ART and ENTERTAINMENT.

Yes. 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.

Art 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.)

QuoteBut unless it has exceeded it's medium then it remains  as it was.

And who judges that? You?

Let me be clear too:

I despise the seemingly careless way many of seem to disregard anything that doesn't meet your own definition of art. Art is subjective-that is what makes it so fascinating and amazing. There is no mathematical equation to what is and isn't art. That is an individual and subjective opinion.

And that's what bugs me about you people. You're assuming your opinions are fact. Carved in stone, set in granite fact.

Forgive me for ranting, but nothing disgusts me more.

Shadowrun is art to me. It has changed my life. I don't expect it to be art for everyone esle. Comic books are art to me. Sex is art to me at times. Pornography, graffitti, archetecture, writing, all of it.

Now maybe you can sit there and make some sort of imaginary line and declare one side art and the other entertainment, but I try to look at the world with out my own biases interfering in that view. I try not to force my own catergorization on others.

None 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.

I agree with the late Douglas Adams that the idea of art kills creativity. It's a word laden with all kinds of icky connotations and heaviness that does nothing to encourage anyone - gamer, novelist, painter, musician, whatever - to have a good time making something good.

But given that I distinguish between art and AHHHHT, RPGs are frequently art.

If they try to be AHHHHT, count me the fuck out. And I don't just mean games. My hair is not yet blue enough, my pulse not yet weak enough, for AHHHHT.

QuoteAnd that's what bugs me about you people. You're assuming your opinions are fact. Carved in stone, set in granite fact.

You are ver ignorant and full of your pre-conception on what you want to think about others. I said, right at the start, that ANYTHING can be art. And that I personally laugh about those who view the ACTUAL PLAY as anything worth comparing to great works of art.
Sure, it is a personal thing. Sure there is no bright line.

That's why I personally despise them, for having made an uneducated decision based on sentiment instead of rationality.

People consider American Idol to be art. If it is for them, it is undeniably so. But I, sir, have the total freedom, to think that those people lack in:

1) taste

and

2) perspective

You  relish in one side of cultural relativism. Bear with the other. if it is your personal decision, live with others making a DIFFERENT one, and laughing about you for choosing crumbly cheddar as the "next big thing". If a shadowrun novel is literature for you, go ahead. I know that you don't know what is really good. If art is anything, no value in exclaiming "but it is art" remains.

Quote from: Serious PaulLet me be clear too:

None 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.

Classic! Moral relativism and solipsism all balled into one! I feel I must reply in kind!

Well, you're just a poopyhead!

:D

-mice

Quote from: S. John RossIf they try to be AHHHHT, count me the fuck out. And I don't just mean games. My hair is not yet blue enough, my pulse not yet weak enough, for AHHHHT.

Hi S. John! Good to see your smiling face in here! :D

-mice

Unlike you, however, I don't package my opinions as fact. In fact I preface them with the warning that they are just that: my opinions. Stand upon your soap box, and laugh.

I on the other hand stand by my remarks: you guys are a bunch of stuffed shirts.

You're all welcome to sit at my table and find out what fun really is.

Quote from: flyingmiceHi S. John! Good to see your smiling face in here! :D

-mice

Heya! 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 :)

Try Animal Ball (http://www.animalball.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl). At least we don't pretend to be smarter or more fun than all the rest of the geeks like us.

QuoteUnlike you, however, I don't package my opinions as fact.

If I think shadowrun to be consumerist rubbish w/o any higher art in it, it would be a disservice to humanity to not utter that when needed. It's a matter of intellectual hygiene, as is pointing out that reading a newspaper is superiour to watching the Daily Show.

If no one makes a stand for quality and the true greatness of the achievements of civilization, then there can be no discourse, just Jack and his shitty holy ("every sperm is sacred...") statements.

Quote from: Serious PaulYou're all welcome to sit at my table and find out what fun really is.

No thanks, buddy! You're too serious for me. You have so much gravitas light bends around you. I prefer enjoying my fun. :D

-mice

Quote from: S. John RossHere'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 :)

I seldom post at RPGnet much any more, and for the same reasons. I am clutching my trusty wind-up - it plays pop goes the weasel when I wind it - and peering into the darkness too. I'm not holding my breath though. :D

-mice

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 (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.

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 (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 (http://breedart.org/hive/forumreplies.php?topicID=1128916587) 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 (http://breedart.org/hive/forumreplies.php?topicID=1128916587) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://www.systemdanmarc.dk/) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://www.systemdanmarc.dk/) 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

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, (http://jmcl63.blogspot.com/2006/01/general-gamism_19.html) 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, (http://jmcl63.blogspot.com/2006/01/general-gamism_19.html) 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.

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?

The very suggestion that RPG is art invokes those "therefore" answers (except for the first one, which is an answer for most activities that have nothing to do with art).

I'd add a few.

...therefore what I do is important
...therefore what I do should be respected.

Quote from: jhkimWe 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:"  

It doesn't imply anything just like "watching TV is not art, therefore...".

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

It means that I don't have to worry about people assuming and of the "therefore" answers about myself when they find out I play RPGs.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonSo why is Year of the Zombie: Marauders (http://www.ukg-publishing.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=88) not art?

I think playing rpg's are unquestionably a kind of performance art -- just like oral storytelling is an art. A good storyteller can tell a scary ghost story and everyone has a blast around the campfire. A rousing speech or epic tale can serve a number of artistic purposes.

Certianly gaming can inspire emotions and deep thought, introspection, etc. If you let various kinds of oral storytelling be art, why not RPGs?

To be "high art" you'd need a history and cultural context to judge a given performance in -- canon and critics.

Since those things don't exist yet, for RPGs, anyone going around claiming "what I do is art! It's not just killing orcs!" is being silly and pretentious.

I think it's just a matter of time now: a lot of RPGing isn't transient anymore (we have collaboration tools that are capable of recording a variety of RPG interactions), so there will be bodies of work that can be referenced, analyzed, and so-on.

What would the purpose be? I think a good RPG game is an awesome personal experience. There are RPG games that, in fact, make good stories and are entertaining to listen to.

Most of any type of art is going to be meaningful only to the people who created it (in other words: very likely, no one wants to hear about your elf), but I've seen Actual Play write-ups that I found inspiring and I've sat in on game sessions that I wasn't participating in and found the experience enjoyable.

It's possible; just rare.

I think the question about whether *games* themselves are art is a bit trickier.

Clearly good writing can be art, but if you let in the D20 SRD, you might also have to let in K&R's "The C Language" (a classing programming reference that's a masterpiece of elegance, and information, but I hesitate to call it "art")

Certainly the fiction parts of an RPG could be art (they're short stories), but I wonder if the system *itself* could be considered art.

I think the answer is probably "yes" but only under some relatively unusual conditions. And I suspect that a system that's "good art" might actually be a lousy system to really play.

Systems like violence and, say, paranoia make specific artistic statements. I suspect a lot of indie games attempt the same things. System mechanics could strive for art-like elements (the kind of beauty mathematicians and physcists see in proofs and theories)

My guess is that the more a *system* tries to be art, the less of a tool it is for the players to make their own artistic statement.

I've seen some commentators (R. Ebert) suggest that media that allow the audience to affect the story can't be art (his explanation for why video games aren't art).

If that's true, the RPG playing can't be art (the games, themselves, still could be). I don't think it's true though: I think *all* art is interactive to some degree. I look at a painting or a photo, and my personal experience is part of the overall artistic experience.  Certainly interaction starts to blur the line between artist and audience, but that doesn't necessarily make the art, itself any less art for it.

My guess is that most folks want a somewhat deliniated experience (which is why the traditional model of GM-as-primary-story-teller is so popular), but even an oral storyteller takes cues from his audience... RPGs, I think, are just further along that continuum.

Cheers,
-E.

I don't mean this as a universal definition, but I think for many purposes "art" can be seen as anything for which the user/observer/participant/creator applies aesthetic criteria. On these grounds I can see elements of art in some proofs and theories, but ultimately the reason that they aren't fundamentally art is that their value is based on nonaesthetic criteria--adherence to logical principles, ability to explain/predict repeatable experimental data, &c.

Note that by these criteria the ars amatoria is an art. I don't have a problem with that, as long as we don't drift into talking about what S. John calls "Aaaaat".

Just thought I'd toss that out. I hope it helps.