Quote from: JimBobOz

IS IT A GAME OR IS IT REAL?

Games are Real.

Quote from: UmaSamaGames are Real.

Especially if your name is Hank, Bobby, Eric, Diana, Albert, or Sheila.

Quote from: James McMurrayMe neither. Does anyone listen to those? And if so, does that make them art? Or heaven forbid, Art?

Or even Art Bell?

 Lot of great RPG plots can be inspired from that guy's conversations.

- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkimI don't think that permanence is important to art.  The presence or absence of cameras doesn't make a performance art or not art.  I don't think that repetition is required for art.  i.e. If a jazz musician plays a little differently for every different audience, that doesn't mean his music isn't art.  Lastly, I don't think that money is important for art.  Even if people won't pay money to see something doesn't mean that it isn't art.

I don't think permanence or repetition is necessarily important to art, but I do think the potential of permanence or repetition is important.

If I go into a soundproof room and play a jazz solo, I might have made art in there, even if nobody actually hears it. If I write a novel and then burn it, I might be burning art, even though nobody else ever read my book. But someone else could potentially have listened to my jazz solo or read my book, and thus there was a potentiality of the sort of communication of aesthetic experience and impressions which, in my view, is the definition of art.

Your first definition, after all, talks about "constructive creative endeavour"; I say that a creative endeavour isn't truly constructive unless you at least have the potential of... well... constructing something from it.

Another argument. Does "art" refer to the end product of a creative endeavour or the creative endeavour itself? Does our jazz soloist's practice sessions count as art? Does an author, sitting at his desk, writing something down constitute art? I would argue that roleplaying games resemble a process more than they do a product.

Jesus, Pundy's really avoiding those questions.  Pretty hypocritical, when you consider that over here he was chasing and needling Ian Absentia on a thread to answer some questions that had fuck-all to do with anything.

Oh crap, this means I have to participate in another general RPG discussion thread, I guess (I'm trading "one bullshit pundy post per one actualy RPG discussion post that helps the site").

-Andy

It seems to me that Pundit believes all RPGs or rather the purpose of RPGs is escapism and any who think differently are SWINE which puts him (Pundit) on a collision course with Tony who believes that for some the very act of participating (design, playing etc) in an RPG could be construed as ART. I have no problem with either view.

Regards,
David R

I could put on my virtual turtleneck and ask, "Well, what is art _really_?" Or with a slight hint of a lisp "Hellooo, could we define 'escapism' first?"

Quote from: SosthenesI could put on my virtual turtleneck and ask, "Well, what is art _really_?" Or with a slight hint of a lisp "Hellooo, could we define 'escapism' first?"

Well you could but then you know, we would have to have an actual discussion....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: QuireAny argument about what qualifies as art is seriously fucking doomed from the outset. There is no definition. One man's art is another man's pretentious nonsense; another's art could be considered by others as unsophisticated trash. Permanancy, consistency, audience, value - all irrelevant.

The crux of being a 'swine' must surely be about superiority.

Which gets at the part of the "art" definition that hasn't been discussed here. Namely: if something's "art", so what? So...it deserves government funding? It doesn't have to be accessible? It doesn't have to be enjoyable? You're supposed to suppress your critical faculties and personal values, because you're afraid of being called a philistine?

Or, something's "not art". So...it must not be thoughtful? It doesn't have to be well made? We must not discuss how we enjoy it, and how to make it better for ourselves?

Crap to all that.

Quote from: David RIt seems to me that Pundit believes all RPGs or rather the purpose of RPGs is escapism and any who think differently are SWINE...

...which doesn't really work well with his "MY Rome campaign requires a Masters in History to run. I'm not being pretentious, I'm just telling the truth!" claims.

And yeah, I too am in the camp with "they can be both", as well as "fuck coffee-house armchair theory/aaaahrt".

Quote from: Elliot WilenOr, something's "not art". So...it must not be thoughtful? It doesn't have to be well made? We must not discuss how we enjoy it, and how to make it better for ourselves?

Crap to all that.

Agreed, with exploding high fives.

Quote from: Andy KJesus, Pundy's really avoiding those questions.  Pretty hypocritical, when you consider that over here he was chasing and needling Ian Absentia on a thread to answer some questions that had fuck-all to do with anything.
-Andy

Yeah he likes to be the one asking the questions.  But when it comes to answering them he tries his best to avoid it.  Probably because he knows he can't talk himself out of the hole he's dug himself into most of the time.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhich gets at the part of the "art" definition that hasn't been discussed here. Namely: if something's "art", so what? So...it deserves government funding? It doesn't have to be accessible? It doesn't have to be enjoyable? You're supposed to suppress your critical faculties and personal values, because you're afraid of being called a philistine?

Or, something's "not art". So...it must not be thoughtful? It doesn't have to be well made? We must not discuss how we enjoy it, and how to make it better for ourselves?

Crap to all that.

Brilliant.

I don't understand the "escapism" part. Playing an RPG is part of reality. So is making and looking at art, btw.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou're supposed to suppress your critical faculties and personal values, because you're afraid of being called a philistine?

Pardon?

If you're supposed to suppress your critical faculties, it's a sure sign you're not dealing with art. You're dealing with ideology.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhich gets at the part of the "art" definition that hasn't been discussed here. Namely: if something's "art", so what?

*Cues the hosanna chorus*