Is D&D Art?

[wrecan]

The conscious effort you expend creating a fun game environment is also creating art.

You are defining art circularly. If art is actions intended to create art, it is a meaningless definition. It cannot tell us what "art" is because it assumes a definition of art in its description.

And, yes, as conscious applications of creativity or imagination to evoke an emotional response, rhetoric, toilet humor, and sex are all art forms. Rhetoric is actually one of the classic artforms!

Toilet humor may be lowbrow art, but it's still art. Entertainment is art, and the Jackass movies and Three Stooges may be crude and crass, but they are art.

You are confusing "art" with "high art" or "fine art". Is D&D a fine art like sculpture, painting, poetry, authorship, and playwriting? No. Is D&D an artform like juggling, improvisational theater games, dog grooming, and bird calling? Absolutely.

 

[RainOfSteel]

D&D transcends art. To categorize as merely art is to do it a disservice. D&D is a mode of being.

Wait, what?

I wasn't aware the "art" descriptor was such a buzzkill.

I was thinking the same thing.

I don't see the art label as being a disservice.

It's like the paint splatter board I saw along the side of the road; [...] but it was just trash, not art.

[...] glass replica flowers, along with replica dinosaurs and what not. None of it is art, [...]

You don't like them. That does not mean they aren't art.

[...] I can appreciate it aesthetically, and could imagine it in a museum,[...]

In the same breath where you state the referenced items aren't art, you are also praising them as art.

What do you think aesthetic appreciation is all about? If something generates aesthetic appreciation, it's art.

(I readily admit that I do not like paint-splatter art, but art it is.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The conscious effort you expend creating a fun game environment is also creating art.

As the song goes, "it ain't neccessarily so." You can create something fun without creating art- like a game. You can create something aesthetically pleasing without creating art- that is one of the distinctions between art and design.

You are defining art circularly. If art is actions intended to create art, it is a meaningless definition. It cannot tell us what "art" is because it assumes a definition of art in its description.

It's not circular. Art is not actions intended to create art. Art is the result of actions intended to create art- the actions are necessary steps of creation, and usually not art themselves. IOW, it isn't the sitting down and writing the book, it is the book itself.

And, yes, as conscious applications of creativity or imagination to evoke an emotional response, rhetoric, toilet humor, and sex are all art forms. Rhetoric is actually one of the classic artforms!

But they are not intrinsically art- there has to be more than just the base form of each for them to rise to the level of art, and that requires conscious and specific effort to "raise it to a form of art."

Toilet humor may be lowbrow art, but it's still art.

not intrinsically- that is, not all toilet humor is art. Some is, but not all.

Entertainment is art, and the Jackass movies and Three Stooges may be crude and crass, but they are art.

Again, just because something is entertaining or in an artistic form does not automatically qualify it as art.

(And as between the 2 examples, I'll only give you one.)

You are confusing "art" with "high art" or "fine art". Is D&D a fine art like sculpture, painting, poetry, authorship, and playwriting? No. Is D&D an artform like juggling, improvisational theater games, dog grooming, and bird calling? Absolutely.

I can assure you that I'm under no such misapprehension. As I said upthread, even bad art is art. Frex, I can appreciate that scatology can be done in such a way that is truly artistic, but 99.999% of the time, a flaming bag of poo on a doorstep is just a flaming bag of poo on a doorstep, not art. For that to rise to the level of art would require intent to do so- and probably an extraordinary set of circumstances of time, place and so forth.

 

[Janx]

It's not circular. Art is not actions intended to create art. Art is the result of actions intended to create art- the actions are necessary steps of creation, and usually not art themselves. IOW, it isn't the sitting down and writing the book, it is the book itself.



But they are not intrinsically art- there has to be more than just the base form of each for them to rise to the level of art, and that requires conscious and specific effort to "raise it to a form of art."

Is it possible then, by your definitions, that I can willfully plan and execute a D&D session that is Art?

I don't know what that would actually entail, buts let's imagine it was well done and the carefully selected and receptive audience (the players) enjoyed it. And that somehow I went above and beyond the standard of quality for DMing (props, hand-outs, NPC characterizations, fairness, flexibility, and adaptive/immersive 'storyline').

When I started planning this session, my intent was that this to be an event to be remembered as Art, that would be talked of by players for centuries, and that my name would be remembered in history as a DM Artist.

While some folks may play D&D as a Game, I assert it isn't and that my "Art D&D" would not be under any such illusion as to be a simple Game. So the metric that "because I consider D&D to be just a game, then all D&D sessions are just a game" is not applicable. My session is not your session, especially if I am striving for it to be Art.

It certainly would qualify as Entertainment. I don't assume that everyone would enjoy it, for as simple a reason as style preferences. Which is why I noted I would hand-pick a target audience for this imaginary performace.

Is this Art?

 

[wrecan]

It's not circular. Art is not actions intended to create art. Art is the result of actions intended to create art

Your definition of art -- the result of actions intended to create art -- contains "art" within it. That is what makes it circular. It begs the question: what is art?

At a D&D session, the players and DM are engaged in creative behavior. They are creating entertainment for one another. It is an intentional act resulting in the product (the play experience) intended. That's art.

Wizards occasionally posts videos of game sessions in which Chris Perkins DMs a group of people, like the folks from Robot Chicken, Penny Arcade, or a group of British game designers. Not only do the people playing these games seem to be enjoying the experience, but people view the Youtube video and enjoy being an audience member. Isn't this art?

that requires conscious and specific effort to "raise it to a form of art."

Define "art", then. I defined it as something that evokes an emotional response. You clearly have something else in mind, and you need to articulate what it is. For me, art requires three things: 1) an intentional 2) application of creativity or imagination 3) to evoke an emotional response. Clearly, you reject the third element, and have replaced it with something different. Please explan what that is without using the word "art" or a synonym thereof.

 

[Janx]

Your definition of art -- the result of actions intended to create art -- contains "art" within it. That is what makes it circular. It begs the question: what is art?

I think you're quibbling over an artifact of speech.
He could have said "Art is the result of actions intended to create it"
Though 'it' is just a place holder for art.

it still translates into "I am going to make a piece of Art" which when the work is done, there stands a piece of Art.

It boils down to DA says it takes "Intent"

Thus dropping a bag of flaming poo on your neighbor's step is a prank. Sculpting the poo into an angry fist with gas fueled flames emitting from it and putting it on a platter is art. There was some extra "Intent" to do something and somehow make a statement with the piece.

Is grafiti art? Especially the really fancy scenes, not the tagger logo crap.

If I take a piece of paper and sketch a picture of my dog, is that Art?

If yes, then why is the barrier to entry for that so low, compared to the barrrier to entry for my D&D session to be art?

Does it have to do with mundaneness? Anybody can drop a bag of poo off on the neighbor's step. Anybody can "run" a D&D session and even "claim" it is art. But not just anybody can sketch my dog and actually make it look good.

 

[wrecan]

I think you're quibbling over an artifact of speech.
He could have said "Art is the result of actions intended to create it"
Though 'it' is just a place holder for art.

That would still be circular, because what must the intent be to be creating "art"? What must the "artist" have in mind? If we can't define "art" how do me know that the putative artist has a definition of it himself?

It boils down to DA says it takes "Intent"

But, just as you asked, if I sit down to play D&D and, before we start i announce "This session is going to be a work of art", is it art? What if I didn't say it? What if I intended it to be a work of art, but I forgot to think "This is art" during the game, even though I acted no differently?

In other words, what is it that must be intended? When I play D&D, I intend it to be an entertaining yarn with my friends. Isn't storytelling an artform?

Does it have to do with mundaneness? Anybody can drop a bag of poo off on the neighbor's step. Anybody can "run" a D&D session and even "claim" it is art. But not just anybody can sketch my dog and actually make it look good.

As far as I can tell, it's the application of creativity and imagination. Dropping a bag of flaming poo is not imaginative. Graffitti is imaginitive, unless the tagger has put no creativity or imagination into the design of his tag.

It seems people are trying to make "art" meaningful, when it's just creative.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think you're quibbling over an artifact of speech.
He could have said "Art is the result of actions intended to create it"
Though 'it' is just a place holder for art.

... Which makes it a circular definition, and therefore pretty useless.

 

[Janx]

That would still be circular, because what must the intent be to be creating "art"? What must the "artist" have in mind? If we can't define "art" how do me know that the putative artist has a definition of it himself?


As far as I can tell, it's the application of creativity and imagination. Dropping a bag of flaming poo is not imaginative. Graffitti is imaginitive, unless the tagger has put no creativity or imagination into the design of his tag.

It seems people are trying to make "art" meaningful, when it's just creative.

the point is, arguing about the way he said it is just being pedantic. there must be a way to say what he said without using the word art inside the statement. DA's a lawyer, I guess that's his job to figure out. Otherwise, let's just give him some grace on what he meant, and move on.

Moving on, I don't agree with what he meant. I just don't think that its a detectable indicator. How can YOU tell what I intended? You can guess, by virtue of paint on a canvas is usually art. People rolling dice is usually a game. What did Da Vinci intend with the Mona Lisa? It was probably just a portrait of some guy's wife. No different than Hannah Montana's phone-cam shots of the modern era (albeit, requiring hiring a painter to make it).

Is Danny trying to wrangle a definition to include paintings as art, but D&D session is not art? Akin to some new state law saying gay people can't vote? (a fictional example, but not an unheard of concept in US history).

I think once the door is opened past stuff on walls and sculptures to include the 'arts" as singing, dancing, performing, storytelling, etc, then the bar has hung low enough that anything creative is probably art. maybe with a lowecase a, instead of an A for the good stuff.

 

[wrecan]

the point is, arguing about the way he said it is just being pedantic.

I didn't think I was being pedantic. I was just tryng to get at a definition that didn't use the word art or a synonym, so I could understand how he figured out if something is art. I apologize for the pedantry.

Moving on, I don't agree with what he meant. I just don't think that its a detectable indicator.

Okay. You take issue with intentionality being an element. But does that mean if I spill some paint on a canvas, without intending to, it can be art? What if there is an earthquake in a paint store, which causes paint to spill; on a canvas? Can there be accidental art?

I think once the door is opened past stuff on walls and sculptures to include the 'arts" as singing, dancing, performing, storytelling, etc, then the bar has hung low enough that anything creative is probably art.

I think anything creative... which is intended to evoke an emotional reaction is art.

maybe with a lowecase a, instead of an A for the good stuff.

I don't know why the works of Shakespeare, Homer, Victor Hugo, and Fellini should be disqualified from being included in "the good stuff" just because it won't appear in an art museum.