"Gamism," The Forge, and the Elephant in the Room

[LurkAway]

The First World War punctures modern Europe's illusory self-conception (although films like Warhorse seem designed to try and reestablish the illusion!). The Fountain is an expression of, and a reflection on, that point in the domain of the visual arts. It's a savage attack on what its author regards as a failed civilisation - and failed not due to external shock, but due to its own, radically conceited failure of self-understanding.

Bedrockgames, or to put it simply, Duchampe was subverting conventional notions of "What is art?"

So you walk through an art gallery, adoring the Mona Lisa and other great artworks, and then suddenly you come to a urinal mounted on a wall, and that's there to challenge you -- the usual modernist stuff.

But AFAICT, this is the art world's interpretation of Duchampe. The art itself can be deeply personal, and artists may or may not be able to articulate their own opinions of their own art.

IMO, it's contemporary artspeak that I like to dismiss because I think its jargon and pretentiousness prevents it from being an effective and honest "ambassador" between the artist's work and the rest of the world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't want to break board rules - but when thinking about The Fountain you have to remember that it is 1917. France, together with the rest of Europe - and especially England and Germany - who collectively regarded themselves as the pinnacle of human civilisation, with their art as part of that - is bleeding dry in perhaps the most pointless war in human history.

The First World War punctures modern Europe's illusory self-conception (although films like Warhorse seem designed to try and reestablish the illusion!). The Fountain is an expression of, and a reflection on, that point in the domain of the visual arts. It's a savage attack on what its author regards as a failed civilisation - and failed not due to external shock, but due to its own, radically conceited failure of self-understanding.

To use the "new clothes" analogy - the whole point of the Fountain is that European civilisation, c 1917, has no clothes on.

Anyway, I don't think I can say any more without blatantly breaking the rules of the board.

I understand that reading, but for me it doesn't redeem the piece.

 

[pemerton]

IMO, it's contemporary artspeak that I like to dismiss because I think its jargon and pretentiousness prevents it from being an effective and honest "ambassador" between the artist's work and the rest of the world.

Contemporary criticism reminds me of Plato's doctrine that it is critics who are the real musicians (because performers are just slaves, and composers just follow the rules of harmony - at least, this is my recollection of a lecture I was in a long time ago).

But besides the sometimes excessive self-importance, I don't like the dependence of a lot of contemporary criticism on what I regard as flawed accounts of meaning (especially Heidegger and Derrida and now Zizek, all of whom I regard as grossly overrated).

Bedrockgames, or to put it simply, Duchampe was subverting conventional notions of "What is art?"

<snip>

But AFAICT, this is the art world's interpretation of Duchampe.

Because I'm trained as a political and social philsopher, and not as an art historian or critic, I tend to see it more in historical/political/social terms than in narrowly aesthetic/"what is art?" terms. Which probably came through in my post above.

More generally, I'm sceptical of criticism that is divorced from politics - which is not to say that I think aesthetics is just a branch of morality - my tentative view is that they're independent and sometimes are opposed. It's more that I think Neitzsche is right about the connection between evaluation and social/historical context.

To try and bring this back on topic, but probably by saying something that no one else agrees with, one thing I like about Edwards is that he tries, in his GNS essays, to link playstyle and system design to broader ideas about how RPGing works as a social activity, relates to other competing leisure or creative activities, etc. I wouldn't say that he's always right, but I like that he makes the attempt.

 

[LurkAway]

To try and bring this back on topic,

Yes, let's do that

but probably by saying something that no one else agrees with, one thing I like about Edwards is that he tries, in his GNS essays, to link playstyle and system design to broader ideas about how RPGing works as a social activity, relates to other competing leisure or creative activities, etc. I wouldn't say that he's always right, but I like that he makes the attempt.

I won't presume to judge one or way another. But I would like to quote a tidibit from Ron Edwards just less than a year ago that makes me wonder how much he is in touch with RPGing as a social activity:

Here's something you should know about me: I have no "smoothing" social skills at all. I despise nice little phrases that lubricate exchanges of information. So when I say, "I'm interested in what you have to say," like I did in your thread, I f*cking well mean it and - you know? - expect you to chill, and receive the genuine respect I just handed you instead of getting all bent out of shape. When I close with "Best," you know what that means? It means I sweated over that post with my best attempt to communicate. It's not some cute little TTFN sign-off.

 

[pemerton]

That's a bit ad hominem, isn't it? I mean, a sociologist could be gruff, rude or taciturn and still be a good sociologist.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's a bit ad hominem, isn't it? I mean, a sociologist could be gruff, rude or taciturn and still be a good sociologist.

The problem with Edwars is it impacts is ideas. I also would not say he is doing sociology. Sociologists have a method, edwards has opinions and theorirs based on his own experiences with gaming. If he was actually going out and performing objective studies about ow gamers behave and communicate, that would be different. I would compare what he does more to a literary critic with a critical framework. However I would argue his framework is flawed.

 

[pemerton]

A critic, sure, but not a critic just of the products of RPG play, or just of RPG texts. He has a theory - obviously a contentious one - of how RPG play works as a social activity, and what it's social point might be.

The Lumpley Principle, for example, is a sociological conjecture. Likewise the contention that the primary function of RPG rules - whatever else they might do - is "to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table".

(Admittedly these aren't Edwards, but they're from the same school, and he says similar sorts of things, although not always as clearly!)

I think the 4e rulebooks could do with more of this. The DMG talks about various sorts of player, using Robin Laws' categories (I think - I don't actual have the Laws of Good Gamemastering). But there is little attempt to relate these social dynamics of play to the structuring of scenarios or the incorporation of story elements other than fairly banal stuff like "If you have an Actor than include some NPCs to talk with". And all of the Monster Manual is presented in ingame, fictional terms rather than at the metagame and social level. Worlds and Monsters was better in this respect, in my view, talking at the metagame level about how story elements are to be used. But it still doesn't include advice on the social dynamics of shared story creation.

Simplest example: the DMG says that players can create Quests, but says nothing about how this is actually to be handled at the table. Who designs the encounters? According to what principles? Who decides how much treasure there will be? What if the quest is to find a partiuclar treasure? It's not as if there is nothing useful to be said about how this all might be done - about how realworld negotiation at the playing table might be eased and constrained.

 

[LurkAway]

That's a bit ad hominem, isn't it? I mean, a sociologist could be gruff, rude or taciturn and still be a good sociologist.

I don't want to engage in 'character assassination' so I was hoping that the quote would speak for itself. To put it generally, I think that communication (combined with others like the 'brain damage') is wrong-headed for several reasons, the most relevant one to this discussion being that Edwards seemed unwilling or unable to give others the benefit of the doubt (as much as he expects to receive it). I could explain in detail why I get that impression, but I'm not sure its appropriate to dissect. It just seems to me that giving others the benefit of the doubt, genuinely wanting to understand where they're coming from, is very important to understanding other viewpoints, especially with interpretive theory. Otherwise, the scope of the interpretive theory is self-limited by the author's own communicative barriers. I really didn't want to spell it out like this, i was hoping the quote would speak for itself like I said. And maybe I'm wrong and maybe it was an inadvertent ad hominem attack, but I certaintly didn't intend it that way.

EDIT: Not to be a hypocrite, I would like to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt, so although comments about 'brain damage' do make me rather suspicious, I try not to jump to conclusions, and that's why I wrote earlier that I didn't want to presume one way or another.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6685059]LurkAway[/MENTION], I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy (or didn't mean to). Your follow-up post does make your point clearer. Like you, I haven't done a thorough review of the posts of Ron Edwards.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I dont think he even has a real theory, more of a critical framework or model. But the problem is the model isn't the product of any real method yet it claims tonhave insight into social interaction at the gaming table.

And I think Lurkaway made a good point about closed mindedness. Edwards has an insistence in his viewpoint that troubles me. It is like he can't even conceive of the possibility he is wrong or other approaches may be just as valid. Arguing passionately for a position is fine, but it is very important to understand the other side of the debate without attributing negative qualities to them. In a way, there is an undercurrent of ad hom attacks in a lot of his writing.