I feel like a noob for posting LOL...but damn if you didn't just make me..

And on topic - I now, more than ever, get the sense that Tony is trying to set Pundit up...in what way I'm not quite sure.  But it sure makes it tough to take him as sincerely as I did before...

Hah, I haven't been following the debate at all.

Levi, about intentions WRT cutting off discussion--it does happen. I won't bother to look up contemporary examples, but two old ones come readily to mind. The first is the old "role" vs. "roll" (I link a few examples here) which White Wolf used as marketing tool disguised as "Art", and WW fans grabbed onto it as a weapon to fight a war over aesthetics & brand loyalty. (Actually I don't know if the term "Art" was used much, but the basic dynamic was there.) The other is reported by John McLintock in his blog (including comments)--his experience dealing with an RPG "Artist" back in 1982.

The debate is like two drunk guys flailing at each other out the back of a pub.

Quote from: droogThe debate is like two drunk guys flailing at each other out the back of a pub.

You mean, fun to watch, but still kind of sad, and you want to shower after you're done?

Quote from: Thanatos02You mean, fun to watch, but still kind of sad, and you want to shower after you're done?

Nah, that would be watching two drunk women...

Regards,
David R

QuoteThe debate is like two drunk guys flailing at each other out the back of a pub.

The analogy that came to my mind yesterday was "watching the retarded kid arguing with his special ed teacher."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHey, Abyssal.  Didja miss this bit, several pages back?

I retract my insinuation! ...But my concern still stands.

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?

Well, I don't know if it deserves public funding, but in fact in a couple of Scandanavian countries rpgs have been classified as... well, I don't know if they labelled them as "art", but they must have gone through some labelling or assessment process, because they do get public funding. Like there's this guy writing We All Had Names, an rpg based on the Holocaust, where every player takes turns being the Holocaust and trying to make the others suffer in some way, and they get points for living. Or some shit like that. He was floating around on the Forge a while back, and apparently he's being paid some nominal salary for two years to write the thing. Norwegian, I think he was.

I think the drive to say this or that is "art" is because "just playing games" is a bit childish, but "art" is supposedly adult. It's a matter of prestige and self-esteem and stuff. Plus, if you can score a bit of cash from the public, why not? It's gone to far less worthy causes in the past.

A little late to the game here.

I think this whole argument about art is a big misdirection.  There are just too many other arguments embedded in the "what is art" discussion.  I use an ivory tower model.  It's like academics wanking on and on about power relations and postmodernism and all that.

Now despite my scornful rhetoric above, I do think there is a role for the ivory tower.  It produces a heap of bullshit and ego-based politics that makes you want to join the Khmer Rouge. But every now and then, something helpful trickles down and makes it into society as a whole.

This is why Pundit's wholesale dismissal of that world as "Swine" is reductionist and kind of implicates him in their whole world.  I think if you find all that bullshit distasteful, it's best to just step aside and take from it what works for you.  Because ultimately, if you are a fan of the majority and status quo, any changes the ivory tower may have on your world are going to be so minor and gradual that they won't even have an impact until after you're dead.

In the meantime, there are some good things coming out of the swineherd, a small but working internet-based economy, some good organized convention participation and some great games.

And High Art is when you get stoned and go to the museum.

Tony's last post is an important proof against mixing high art theory and RPG thinking in a nonrigorous fashion.

Sergej Eisenstein's theory of montage is profoundly anti-narrative. It is that regardless of what figures like Mamet and McCloud want it to be. It is also deeply wedded to a political project. To try and harness that to some contemporary US American story-telling project... dude... where's that roll-eyes vomit smiley...

This thread is more entertaining than the actual debate.

Quote from: BrantaiThis thread is more entertaining than the actual debate.

Word.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTony's last post is an important proof against mixing high art theory and RPG thinking in a nonrigorous fashion.

Sergej Eisenstein's theory of montage is profoundly anti-narrative. It is that regardless of what figures like Mamet and McCloud want it to be. It is also deeply wedded to a political project. To try and harness that to some contemporary US American story-telling project... dude... where's that roll-eyes vomit smiley...

Yeah. That's pretty much the problem with most Forge thinking. They're pseudo-intellectuals. You get a mish-mash of various ideas without any real coherence, all put towards the production of a predetermined conclusion.

Interesting.  If the problem is that they are pseudo intellectuals, which I'm not debating, would a group of actual intellectuals do a better job/be more successful?  If so, does that mean it's hopeless for regular joes like me to contribute in any meangingful way?  Will there have to be a point where the actual intellectuals translate the successful work for us regular joes?

I'm not trying to be confrontational with those questions.  I'm not trying to play some kind of class-warfare-type-thingie.  I'm really curious because it's an interesting perpsective, I think.  I could see people doing truly intellectually rigorous studies, but what would it do for us?  I've read medical studies and statistical studies, and if it's not your field of expertise, it can be tough going. So will having this kind of theory be too abstract?

James: I'm not sure, but I think the point about the Psuedo Intellectuals thing is that they dress up their stuff to make it look vaguely like those medical and scientific periodicals... it's an obfuscation.

regular Joe can theorize plenty good. He'll probably say 'and this is how I did it.' like any other craftsman in plain language.

But then again, this isn't my area of expertise, so I could be wrong.