Is D&D Art?

[The Shaman]

Hell no.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Art is not narrowly defined, it is broadly defined.

Art is any product of skill sufficient to produce emotional impact.

D&D qualifies.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When I play D&D, I play to enjoy D&D - the fiddly bits included - which generally means go somewhere, kill something and take its stuff. I'm not there to create anything to be consumed by anyone else, which, in my mind anyway, for something to be about creating art, I'd want to share it with other people.

If I want to play a game where we are getting together to create a shared narrative, D&D is not my system of choice. It's complex in all the wrong places for my tastes.

So, no, it's just a game that I enjoy with my friends.

Again, to me.

That's fair.

Not my experience with the game, but that's where D&D is a diverse game.

***

I certainly never expected 'yes' to be the majority answer, although it's holding down a decent minority-at the moment bigger than the percentage of people who said D&D is about combat (non-scientific data and differing sample size and all other inherent limitations in forum poll data acknowledged; just a casual observation).

These kinds of results I think illustrate the underlying reason why we have edition wars and various other gaming-related disagreements. Unlike most other games, D&D is interpreted by the players. There are books full of rules but people break the rules all the time. There are settings and adventures but many people don't use them. The underlying social contract for D&D is individual for each group. Everyone's D&D is different.

That said, I find reading people's diverse comments on these issues most interesting.

 

[Henry]

I see it as quite the opposite. I see the art come about more as the players portray characters, people other than themselves. There's a whole lot more art in that drama, when well done, than in any prep-work I do as a GM.

I'd have to agree. My thinking is along these lines:

--When D&D the Game is played, by people working together, a story is generated.

--A story, by most definitions of the term, is a form of art.

Therefore, playing D&D generates a form of art.

As others have said, most of it isn't very good art (Sturgeon's Law and all that). The stuff that defies that test, however, is fantastic. I refer to two Story Hours, both first publicly posted on ENWorld, one by Admin Piratecat, and another by a former regular forum user Sepulchrave. Both stories directly stemmed from excellent roleplay by gamers, playing for the communal fun of one another, but generated truly awe-inspiring drama, plot, age-old dilemmas, and in some cases memorable moments for people who never knew the original gamers in question. (Who could imagine that a Paladin who attempted to redeem a Succubus could cause a schism within his own Church, all for the better, as well as spark a war between Heaven and the Abyss? Some fantastic writing, to be sure.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I voted yes. I created my game world and the races and how magic works. I made up religions, societies and laws. I even did weather patterns.

So how is this different that what a novelist or a painter does. I consider books a form of art.

Can't give XP, but here's to homebrewing.

I see it as quite the opposite. I see the art come about more as the players portray characters, people other than themselves. There's a whole lot more art in that drama, when well done, than in any prep-work I do as a GM.

...and so we have essentially two people who reached the same conclusion for opposite reasons. What a world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I voted no. To me it is a game, possibly a creative or intellectual exercise but not art. It is fun and i love playing, love gming...it has just never felt like art to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, though, if you look at art history, one of the criteria for calling something "art" is usually- but not universally- that it was created with the intent of being art. It is a conscious and deliberate act. IOW, there is a distinction between when Jackson Pollack merely threw paint at a canvas- say, because he was bored or upset- and when he threw paint at a canvas to create Ocean Grayness. There is a difference between when Joe Satriani noodles around or practices his scales and progressions, and when he actually sits down to compose.

To further burwongle this up, something's status as art may change from Not Art to Art depending upon presentation. If Satriani's producer has the tape running, and then uses Joe's noodlings as the sample in a rap tune of his own, then those noodlings become art...as well as possible copyright infringement, violation of fiduciary duties, and so forth. (See also Duchamp's Urinal.)

Sturgeons' Law aside, 99.9999% of the time when you sit down to play an RPG, you and your cronies are not consciously setting out to create a work of art. It may be aesthetic in some way, but without that intent, it falls short.

To further distinguish, the story hours are art, almost by definition. Unlike the playing of the game, the person doing a story hour is intentionally relating to others a story in (presumably) the best and most entertaining way they can, and storytelling is definitely an art form. One story hour may be demonstrably better than others, but all at least pass the threshold test of being intentional practice of an art form.

So unless you tape your game and release a documentary Rhapsody in Drow, in D-minor as a deliberate attempt to create a work of art, I'm going to believe it falls short of being art, no matter how well played.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Again, though, if you look at art history, one of the criteria for calling something "art" is usually- but not universally- that it was created with the intent of being art. It is a conscious and deliberate act. IOW, there is a distinction between when Jackson Pollack merely threw paint at a canvas- say, because he was bored or upset- and when he threw paint at a canvas to create Ocean Grayness. There is a difference between when Joe Satriani noodles around or practices his scales and progressions, and when he actually sits down to compose.
...
So unless you tape your game and release a documentary Rhapsody in Drow, in D-minor as a deliberate attempt to create a work of art, I'm going to believe it falls short of being art, no matter how well played.

That's a very high barrier of entry. I would argue that the intent to "play a role" constitutes a conscious effort to create a form of performance art. Certainly the DM's plans for plot, setting, and character are conscious as well. So even given the condition that art requires artistic intent, one could say that D&D qualifies.

Whether or not an individual D&D player actually intends to roleplay or create story is another matter entirely. Certainly some people play D&D without such intent, and that's fine.

99.9999% of the time when you sit down to play an RPG, you and your cronies are not consciously setting out to create a work of art. It may be aesthetic in some way, but without that intent, it falls short.

I'm not sure about that statistic there. I think quite a few people have a very strong conscious intent to create art. Look at all the people on these boards discussing how various literary and other artistic sources influence their games, or those keeping and publishing in some form records of their campaigns. Certainly I've discovered or developed the intent to produce art over time (which is why I started this thread), and while I don't speak for everyone, I doubt that there are 999,999 gamers without any artistic aspirations for every person like me in this respect.

Your milage may vary.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure that one has to create art through conscious effort. Some people might casually break into song, for example, without artistic aspirations, but the results are still music. As far as cliches over deep plot, there are many movies in theaters right now that make the same choice in order to be easily identifiable to the viewers. Michael Bay films are art, for example (although critics don't seem to think they're very good art).

I do, however, understand the point being made. While the goal of D&D is not to win, it also does not generally involve an effort to produce art or a concrete product that could be described as such.

NB this is the definition of art YOU gave in the OP:

Originally Posted by http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1312171173
the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's a very high barrier of entry. I would argue that the intent to "play a role" constitutes a conscious effort to create a form of performance art. Certainly the DM's plans for plot, setting, and character are conscious as well. So even given the condition that art requires artistic intent, one could say that D&D qualifies.

Whether or not an individual D&D player actually intends to roleplay or create story is another matter entirely. Certainly some people play D&D without such intent, and that's fine.

Yes, it is a high barrier, but a crucial one. The creation of art is a conscious, volitional act. Ther has to be intent. And not just to do whatever it is you are doing, but to actually create art.

That is at the heart of my Joe Satriani vs his thieving producer example: what musical notes Joe created as mere practice is not art because he did not create it as such...but the producer's sampling of the same music for a rap recording IS art since the intent is there.

That distinction is the big lesson taught by Marcel Duchamp. Literally anything can be made into art, like his Urinal- which was literally a real urinal he presented as art- the difference is made by the artist's intent.

Without the conscious effort to go beyond merely playing a game with the intent to create art, I really can't accept it as art.

I think quite a few people have a very strong conscious intent to create art. Look at all the people on these boards discussing how various literary and other artistic sources influence their games, or those keeping and publishing in some form records of their campaigns.

I have minors in Literature, Art and Art History, play 3 instruments & voice, had works in my college's permanent collection (until they were destroyed), have designed pieces of jewelry valued over $50K, have a personal collection of books in the thousands, and more than 5K CDs...

All of which have influenced my PC and campaign designs at some point or another. In another thread on these boards, I likened designing a PC to writing a short story.

And with all of that, I still voted "No."