Creating art for a living makes you a professional artist. That tells us that your art is popular (mass popularity, a niche population willing to spend more, or a deep pocketed patron are just different types of popularity). Pet rocks were also really popular. Everyone over the age of [pick some number in the low 2 digits] should know that popular and great art are not the same (for any non tautological definition of great art).

And artists are as prone (if not more) as the general population to saying something stupid and asinine to reinforce their own self-worth.

I can see the "folk art" tag applying to individual products within the rpg realm.  Something like The Crossroads Region Gazeteer for The Mutant Epoch for example sure seems like a piece of folk art to me - pretty much a one man creation and full of his individual style.  I don't really think rpg gaming sessions in general are "art" of any sort really.

Why do games need to be art at all? Can't they just be what they are? Games. People play them, they have fun.

Quote from: Omega;850616Well I guess then we can classify Geezer/whateverhescallednow's sessions of OD&D as comedy sitcom?

Well, duh!

Quote from: Intergalactic Threat;850950Why do games need to be art at all? Can't they just be what they are? Games. People play them, they have fun.

Sure.  I agree ftmp.  However, I think things get a little problematic because so often when someone designates something as "not art" they are really saying that thing is trivial, not meaningful, not worth the paper it's written on, etc.  It's more often than not a way for someone to dis a thing they don't appreciate or understand - sort of like when Roger Ebert said videogames aren't art but movies are.  In the grand scheme of things, who cares?  But still there's a weird defensiveness that can arise...

But yeah, I don't feel like there's any real need for rpgs to be called "art" of any sort.  Its ok to just be a hobby...

Quote from: Intergalactic Threat;850950Why do games need to be art at all? Can't they just be what they are? Games. People play them, they have fun.

Agreed.

Quote from: Omega;850901Ive had a couple of game designers and artists pull the following.

"If you arent being payed then you are not a real designer/artist. You are just a hobbyist/amateur." some taking it further and claiming "If you arent being payed by a publisher. then you are not a real designer/artist. You are just a hobbyist/amateur."

It's nothing new.  I moderated a panel at Worldcon once about writing games for licensed properties, and someone tried to tell me that I was an "author" for my Conan solo.  I said no, I'd written a solo adventure, but I wasn't inclined to put on airs over it, and certainly wasn't going to consider myself in the same category as the published SF&F authors of the world.  Steve Jackson interjected that he'd thought I'd done a good job on it (herewith the irony, because he was the chap who paid me to write it ), but my take was that it didn't matter: I thought myself I'd done a good job in mimicking RAH's voice, but that still didn't make me an "author" -- a good craftsman, maybe, but that was as much as I claimed for myself.

And that panel was over 25 years ago now.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;850962Sure.  I agree ftmp.  However, I think things get a little problematic because so often when someone designates something as "not art" they are really saying that thing is trivial, not meaningful, not worth the paper it's written on, etc.  It's more often than not a way for someone to dis a thing they don't appreciate or understand - sort of like when Roger Ebert said videogames aren't art but movies are.  In the grand scheme of things, who cares?  But still there's a weird defensiveness that can arise...

But yeah, I don't feel like there's any real need for rpgs to be called "art" of any sort.  Its ok to just be a hobby...

I just find the notions that a) games should be art and b) if they aren't art they are inferior to be completely ridiculous.

Art would seem to imply the game most offer a particular experience, something that makes people think XY or Z. I find that contradictory to the premise of an rpg. That's not to say that games can't or shouldn't have themes or offer commentary, but i don't need or seek those things from games. I like the WoD/nWoD series, but I never once played them from the perspective of getting any kind of message. I treated Vampire almost as a superhero game: the pc's were dark protagonists almost in the Marvel comics vein. They didn't comment on the nature of morality and I didn't need them to.

Quote from: Intergalactic Threat;850950Why do games need to be art at all? Can't they just be what they are? Games. People play them, they have fun.

On this, we can agree completely.

Playing a role-playing game is pretty damn different from playing basketball or playing poker in that it involves creative expression - often a ton of creative expression - drawing maps, writing up background, creating characters, improvising in-character dialogue, etc.

I've certainly seen people badmouth those who play in detailed worlds like Tekumel or Harn by saying "Why should I read hundreds of pages of background? It's just a *GAME*!!!" - as if using the word "game" somehow defines what should or shouldn't be done.

The point is, some people find working with involved detail rewarding.

Quote from: Intergalactic Threat;850968I just find the notions that a) games should be art and b) if they aren't art they are inferior to be completely ridiculous.

Art would seem to imply the game most offer a particular experience, something that makes people think XY or Z. I find that contradictory to the premise of an rpg. That's not to say that games can't or shouldn't have themes or offer commentary, but i don't need or seek those things from games.

That seems like a strange definition of art to me. I don't see how a painting or a jazz set necessarily makes people think XY or Z - even if its the Mona Lisa or a John Coltrane riff.

Quote from: jhkim;851000The point is, some people find working with involved detail rewarding.

Yes...and?

I totally agree that some people like detail. I certainly do. But I'm not following what point you think that fact supports nor if nor how it relates to whether or not RPGs are folk art. Please can you unpack that?

Quote from: Bren;850631This reads like the confused struggling of a person who neither plays RPGs nor actually does folk art.

Ding, winnah!

RPGs aren't Folk Art, nor are they a literary art form, despite what Lawsians would have you believe.  The fact that creativity is involved does not an art form make.

Quote from: Bren;851008Yes...and?

I totally agree that some people like detail. I certainly do. But I'm not following what point you think that fact supports nor if nor how it relates to whether or not RPGs are folk art. Please can you unpack that?

The point is that some people use "RPGs are games" to make stupid arguments about what RPGs should be like - just as some people use "RPGs are art" to make stupid arguments about what RPGs should be like.

1) "It's just a game" is used sometimes to say that people shouldn't fill binder after binder with their notes and details. "It's a game" is also used sometimes to say that people shouldn't play with serious themes in the RPGs.

2) "It's art" is used sometimes to say that people shouldn't just have fun killing orcs, or shouldn't have fun just interacting with a simulated world with no deliberate theme.

Both of these are stupid arguments. RPGs are what they are. Applying the label of "game", "folk art", or other doesn't define what they should be.

Quote from: jhkim;851049The point is

Okay. That makes sense. Thanks.

QuoteApplying the label of "game", "folk art", or other doesn't define what they should be.

I don't see how "should" enters into it at all. A description is, well descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes what RPGs are. What they should be, should be up to the participants (obedience to local laws and minimal standards of safety not excepted).

Yay, I'm a folk artist! I have arrived.

May I soon coat my face in honey and cocaine and be a walking interactive installation at my gallery exhibit? Basquiat did it, and Andy thought it was simply mahvelous! (Or was that Billy Crystal?)