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 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.