Is D&D Art?

[WayneLigon]

*When you play D&D, are you creating art?*

It's possible to do so, yes. D&D is entertainment, and entertainment can also be art. Art moves or informs; I've done both through and with D&D. I've had a comedic scene that brought two people to the edge of wetting themselves. I've done character scenes that have made people see the other side of a philosophical question. I've done a romantic scene that brought a woman to tears (in a good way).

I'd say it's certainly possible to do art with D&D. Most of what comes out is good-natured doggerel, quickly tossed off and forgotten, but occasionally it makes that reach into 'art'. Those D&D stories you can't wait to tell to The New Guy? Those are art. Those are experiences that touched you in some way over and above your normal experience.

There need be no intent to 'create art'. In fact, I (subjectively) think art is like life. It's what happens when you're making other plans.

 

[Yesway Jose]

A long time ago, during an art class at school, the art teacher shocked all the students when she stated "You are not making Art". She then clarified by explaining that we were making (lower case 'a') art, but we were not making (capital-'A') Art.

(for the logicians here who I...) *Her* (non-logical) description of Art was anything sold as commercial art, although it's not clear to me if her interpretation includes art sold outside the "Arts world", art created without the intent to be sold as Art but later sold as Art, art/Art like fantasy illustrations that are usually scoffed at in the "Arts world", and whether it is fair and logical to dissect my paraphrasing of her explanation in the 1st place as she surely wasn't trying to give us a logically defensible definition but to provide a sort of floating reference point.

It's confusing enough that the "Arts world" cannot always decide what is Art, but if art is loosely and subjectively defined as something that's non-utilitarian and/or conveys some sort of feeling or whatever interpretation that people are using to subjectively define or describe art, then I'd feel more comfortable opinionating that D&D isn't Art but can be art.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For those making the distinction, I tried to make it clear that we're talking about lower case "art". It's about distinguishing creative vs mechanistic elements of the game and asking which is fundamental to it. (Obviously, the world was capitalized for the title).

Upper-case "Art" vs lower-case "art" is a whole nother argument.

 

[wrecan]

*Her* (non-logical) description of Art was anything sold as commercial art, although it's not clear to me if her interpretation includes art sold outside the "Arts world", art created without the intent to be sold as Art but later sold as Art, art/Art like fantasy illustrations that are usually scoffed at in the "Arts world", and whether it is fair and logical to dissect my paraphrasing of her explanation in the 1st place as she surely wasn't trying to give us a logically defensible definition but to provide a sort of floating reference point.

So if I've been paid to Dungeon Master (and I have), do you think I made art under her definition?

 

[Yesway Jose]

For those making the distinction, I tried to make it clear that we're talking about lower case "art". It's about distinguishing creative vs mechanistic elements of the game and asking which is fundamental to it. (Obviously, the world was capitalized for the title).

IMO you were absolutely clear from the start, and cannot be blamed for any failure to make that distinction. I wouldn't have anticipated that stating one's opinion of lower case art would be all that contentious since the description is so broad. So, 14 pages later, I suppose I was musing if it had anything to do with pinning one's subjective description of art in that subjective grey area -- where Art bleeds into art or vice versa.

 

[Yesway Jose]

So if I've been paid to Dungeon Master (and I have), do you think I made art under her definition?

I feel a subjective compulsion to purposefully respond as carefully and cautiously as I can with you, so assuming that's not a rhetorical question, and taking your question very literally, she never gave us her interpretation of "art", only "Art", so I don't know.

 

[jaerdaph]

Now this is art:

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Philosopher Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches to assessing the aesthetic value of art: the realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans.[2] An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.

So when Wolheim is characterizing art based on the artist's intentions, he's already decided that he is evaluating is art. For Wolheim, intent does not define art; it is a criteria upon which art can be judged.

1) by that last sentence quoted from the article, while he is thinking that the 2 things MAY be art, Wolheim is most clearly not pre-deciding that what he evaluating IS art. Since he is distinguishing whether a painting is art or craft and contemplating whether a utilitarian object should be elevated TO art, he is judging whether or not these things are art.

2) a criteria is a standard, rule, or test on which a judgment or decision can be based.

Which is exactly what I've been doing.

*****

Hopefully, for the last time, I tell you that intent is part of the wiki definition.

The very first line is:

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

Deliberate
Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional;rising from or marked by careful consideration: a deliberate decision.

Arrange
To put into a specific order or relation; dispose: arrange shoes in a neat row; to plan or prepare for: arrange a picnic; to put into a proper, systematic, or decorative order

There it is in parsed English: the first part of the article's initial definition includes "intention" twice.

*****

Lastly, as to my supplying a circular definition.

As I've said, I'm not supplying one beyond the ones already out there, and my usage of "intent" is not imprecise, nor any more or less vague than it is used normally.

Consider: intent is part of the crime murder. You can commit a homicide without it being murder. What is the level of intent? The intent to do grievous harm or kill a human. So, the crime of murder is...the killing of a human with the intent to grievously harm or kill a human.

That's it. Sure, there are gradations and exceptions, but that is what it boils down to. Intent is what distinguishes shooting a gun and killing someone into things like accidental death, negligent homicide and actual murder.

It's the same way with art: to create art, one must intentionally set out to create art. (At least, that is what my teachers felt, and I agreed.)

Now, you may feel that "intent" is not a requisite element of art- there are many who do not- and I'm cool with that. But don't tell me that I'm using the definitions I've supplied that DO include it improperly.

 

[wrecan]

1) by that last sentence quoted from the article, while he is thinking that the 2 things MAY be art, Wolheim is most clearly not pre-deciding that what he evaluating IS art. Since he is distinguishing whether a painting is art or craft and contemplating whether a utilitarian object should be elevated TO art, he is judging whether or not these things are art.

No, he has taken "art" and further divided it into "art" and "craft".

Hopefully, for the last time, I tell you that intent is part of the wiki definition.

You didn't have to do that the first time. I don't have a problem with "intent" being a part of the definition of art, but rather "intent to create art".

Nothing you quoted requires the intention to be to create art. It merely requires that the act that results in art be intentionally taken. D&D is a sries of intentional acts and thus fulfills the requirement of "intent". You keep adding an additional requirement -- that it be an "intent to create art", which you never substantiate.

As I've said, I'm not supplying one beyond the ones already out there

No, you're not supplying any "out there". None of the websites you cited -- except for the one by a blogger who admits she's not educated in art -- require an "intent to create art".

Consider: intent is part of the crime murder. You can commit a homicide without it being murder. What is the level of intent? The intent to do grievous harm or kill a human. So, the crime of murder is...the killing of a human with the intent to grievously harm or kill a human.[/quote]
Murder is specifically defined that way. Moreover, the intent of muirder is not "the intent to commit murder", but "the intent to harm or kill". So the definition of murder, unlike your proposed definition of art, is not circular. If your definition of art was "creating something with the intent to create something that resonates emotionally with the audience", we'd have a working definitiong. If your definition of "art" was 'creatiing something with the intent to create something emotionally resonant with the artist", we'd have a non-circular definition. If your definition of "art" was "creating something that a significant number of art critics accept as art" we'd have a non-circular definition.

But "art" defined as "that which is created with the intent to create art" is inherently circular. There's no way to know what, if anything, meets or does not meet this definition without going outside the definition for a meaning of "art".

It's the same way with art: to create art, one must intentionally set out to create art. (At least, that is what my teachers felt

If you're teachers felt that way they mysteriously neglected to put it down in any citable means, since the stuff you keep citing do not say that.

Now, you may feel that "intent" is not a requisite element of art

No. i am saying that you haven't established that anybody other than you and the uninformed blogger believe that "an intent to create art" is a definition of art, and I'm saying that defining art as something created with "an intent to create art" is inherently circular and useless as a definition.

As I already said, if D&D is art, then intending to play D&D is intending to create art. If D&D is not art then intending to play D&D is not intending to create art. Whether D&D constitutes art under your definition depends on how you define "art", which say cannot be defined. Which means you cannot say D&D is or is not art. And yet you keep saying that you have seen D&D that is not art. Even if your denial is conditioned on the fact that maybe one day you'll see D&D that is art, your denial is inconsistent with your stated definition.

don't tell me that I'm using the definitions I've supplied that DO include it improperly.

I will stop... as soon as you actually supply a definition for "art" that includes "an intent to make art" within it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, he has taken "art" and further divided it into "art" and "craft".

Not only are "Art" and "craft" not synonyms, "Craft" is not even a wholly owned subsidiary of "art." Something that is a "craft" can be "not art."

Nothing you quoted requires the intention to be to create art.

The very first sentence of the wiki definition does

But "art" defined as "that which is created with the intent to create art" is inherently circular. There's no way to know what, if anything, meets or does not meet this definition without going outside the definition for a meaning of "art".

If you're teachers felt that way they mysteriously neglected to put it down in any citable means, since the stuff you keep citing do not say that.

This may sound incredible...but not every book written has its contents available on the internet, at least, not for free. Sometimes, you actually have to read the books or pay for site membership.

For instance, Wolheim in particular is noted for his book, Art and its Objects. Its utterly seminal in the field of the philosophical discussion of aesthetics. Now, while you won't find the book's content for free, you can find citations and discussions of it...and Richard Wollheim is considered to be an Intentionalist.

I'm saying that defining art as something created with "an intent to create art" is inherently circular and useless as a definition.

And yet, that's part and parcel of intentionalist definitions of art- here is an exerpt from a book on art theory by Noël Carrol:

Theories of art today - Google Books

As I already said, if D&D is art, then intending to play D&D is intending to create art. If D&D is not art then intending to play D&D is not intending to create art. Whether D&D constitutes art under your definition depends on how you define "art", which say cannot be defined. Which means you cannot say D&D is or is not art. And yet you keep saying that you have seen D&D that is not art. Even if your denial is conditioned on the fact that maybe one day you'll see D&D that is art, your denial is inconsistent with your stated definition.

D&D IS inherently a game; is not inherently art. It may be used as an artistic medium.

I can say I have seen D&D which is not art, because I have seen people play it expressly and exclusively as a game.

I have NOT seen someone play D&D with artistic intent.

I will stop... as soon as you actually supply a definition for "art" that includes "an intent to make art" within it.

Its in the wiki- you just don't see it.