But is it Art?

[Aberzanzorax]

I'm going to nominate (spoilers below):

Spoiler

Call of Cthulhu.

On top of drawing from literature (which may or may not be art in this case). It evokes a very specific type of horror - the horror of insignificance and inevitable extinction of man.

The books themselves (especially the older ones) may not have excellent graphic artwork (drawings/pictures), however, I think (as I'd posted this distinction earlier) that both the game itself and the experience reasonably good players and GMs have while playing the game qualify as art.

The books, taken as a whole, address real world phenomenon, but from a fantastic perspective. With the analagous "what if" situations placed in our own history (what if Hastur was influencing the holocaust, what if the seas in costal new england towns were full of monsters making life that much harder) we can, in some ways, reflect on that history with new perspective.

The experience of playing is one of chills and the devolvement into insanity for the characters. By examining adversity and the weaknesses of the psyche, playing the game compels emotion and loss, and may also highlight vulnerabilities and strengths of the human mind. Playing Call of Cthulhu, at its best, results in an experience, an immersion, into the challenges and discomforts (and perhaps teaches some tolerance, understanding, and even appreciation of remaining strengths and resiliences) of those who suffer from mental illness.

In my doctoral training in clinical psychology, I came to understand that most (not necessarily every) psychiatric disorders are extremes of normal ranges of emotion and thought. A "normal" person may be fastidiously clean or disgustingly sloppy. An "abnormal" person may have compulsions that cause their cleaning to be disruptive to their lives or may live in a house that is unsafe, unsanitary, and perhaps may lose their home due to it being condemned. The single most important factor that establishes whether someone has a "disorder" or "problem" is if their behavior or thoughts are negatively affecting their lives.

Much like wearing a blindfold for a day can bring those with sight some hints of what being blind is like, so to can Call of Cthulu (again, at its best) bring those who are brave enough some understanding of what it is like to live with a psychiatric impairment that affects their lives. To play Call of Cthulu is to learn the uncomfortable truth: that there is no "sane" and "insane"; there are only thoughts and behaviors...and they can be useful, neutral, or harmful...though the more extreme they are, the less likely they are to be neutral.

Call of Cthulhu is art because it is an experience that plays with the limits of the human mind and understanding.

 

[Mallus]

I think you (or rather Mr. McCloud) is confusing art with crap.

Well, to be fair, most art is crap.

It's still art, though.

 

[jasper]

when I have thousands of people willing to paid $hundreds or $thousands, to watch me piratecate, morriss, and a few of my friends play D&D at the Met or HollyWood Super Dome then it will be art.
Remember art can be everywhere just like farts.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

Well, to be fair, most art is crap.

Intent v. Result, again. Unless the goal is crap, for some reason.

I'm going to nominate (spoilers below):

Thanks. Three recommendations (between here or else where), now I need at least 7 more.

 

[pneumatik]

I think you (or rather Mr. McCloud) is confusing art with crap.

Or how do you feel about this extremely artistic post of mine?

I'm guessing you enjoyed writing your post. You wrote it for public consumption. It looks like you were trying to evoke a particular type of response from the audience. The post expresses a particular view of yours. Sure, it's art.

I'm not arguing that all art is something most people will enjoy consuming (however it's consumed). McCloud's definition of art from Understanding Comics is the only one I've seen that can be consistently applied by multiple people is that art is anything someone does for joy. The subject matter and medium are irrelevant.

EDIT: Also, being art doesn't make something special. If you're unsure if it's art, it's art. The interesting discussions are based around identifying art that seems good to you, or the gap between the artist's goal and a specific work of art of theirs. But I find the idea that something I like and consider art actually isn't because someone else doesn't like it, or it doesn't meet someone else's arbitrary definition.

 

[Jhaelen]

If you're unsure if it's art, it's art.

And this is exactly what I refute. Someone has to call it art before it can be art. If the unintentional artist doesn't consider it art and no one else does, then it's definitely _not_ art.

Besides, where does your 'definition' of art-as-a-default leave Dadaism? If everything is art (unless everyone explicitly says it isn't) how can there be anti-art?

See, I usually enjoy going to the loo - creating that pile of poo somehow makes me feel better. So, that's art, too, right?

 

[pneumatik]

And this is exactly what I refute. Someone has to call it art before it can be art. If the unintentional artist doesn't consider it art and no one else does, then it's definitely _not_ art.

Besides, where does your 'definition' of art-as-a-default leave Dadaism? If everything is art (unless everyone explicitly says it isn't) how can there be anti-art?

See, I usually enjoy going to the loo - creating that pile of poo somehow makes me feel better. So, that's art, too, right?

Going to the bathroom isn't art because you need to do it to survive. But writing you name in the snow when you go is. Vulgarity doesn't keep something from being art.

It's not necessary that someone observe art for it to be art. If Keats had succeeded at hiding "Ode to a Nightingale" it would still have been art.

My knowledge of Dadaism doesn't extend beyond wikipedia and Over the Edge, but as far as I can tell it's definitely art. The artists can call it whatever they want, but fundamentally it's art. It's even pretty traditional-looking art in that it's pictures you hang on the wall and look at.

Anything people do out of joy has the opportunity to touch other people. Anything that one person is inspired to create can inspire someone else. Or it may only impact the artist. Those things are what I consider art. Something that means nothing to me may mean the world to someone else. I don't want to not recognize something just because it doesn't appeal to me. I want a world with more of those things in it because I don't know - no one knows - what art will be important to who. So I call it all art because it all means something to someone.

 

[Jhaelen]

My knowledge of Dadaism doesn't extend beyond wikipedia and Over the Edge, but as far as I can tell it's definitely art. The artists can call it whatever they want, but fundamentally it's art.

Oh, dear the poor dadaists!
So even if they explicitly state that it isn't art (i.e. they're very sure it isn't) they cannot help creating art.

Btw. here's my favorite example when I think about dadaism: Marcel Duchamp, Fountain

Basically, you take an everyday item, sign it and call it art in an attempt to show that this _is not_ how you create art (and anyone considering it art is basically an idiot).

Basically, what your opinion on art reminds me of is one of Nirvana's last concerts:
No matter what Kurt Cobain did, the fans were cheering and thought it was brilliant. Imho, that attitude was largely responsible for him comitting suicide:
If it no longer matters what you do and the public's appreciation of your work doesn't change no matter how much of your heart and soul went into its creation, there's really nothing you can do anymore. It's a weird reversal of 'throwing pearls before swine'.

 

[Meatboy]

Sure games can be art. But allow me to throw out an idea about art in general first. I am sure someone said this before and probably better but hear me out.

OK art is dialogue between the creator and the viewer in which the creator states a certain world view, consciously or not. The thing that makes this dialogue possible, its 'language', is context. Old art (renaissance stuff or other ancient pieces from any culture really) is usually easy to appreciate because its drawn from real life, a context we all share. Without that context, that understanding, any dialogue between artist and viewer becomes lost or muddied and you are left with people saying "Huh? I don't get it."

For example I saw Eminem mentioned earlier, he is a generally regarded as great even by people who don't listen to rap. I say this is due to his skill, as both a musician and lyricist, and the fact that he raps about things which are 'universal', like currents events or feelings of loss, anger etc. This is the context that allows what he is trying to say reach such a wide audience. Because most people have some idea of events or have dealt with the same feelings that he raps about. There are other rappers, who even though they are well regarded within the rap world, have much more limited appeal because they tend to rap about the 'thug life'. This context is something that does not allow the creator/viewer dialogue to happen as easily, unless you are A) someone who has experienced thug life or has grown up in areas steeped in that culture or B) a fan of the medium called rap. (There are probably other who appreciate it as well but hopefully you get the idea.)

Ack got to go to work I'll be back tonight to tie this idea of art with games.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

This is better than the bump I had been planning to give the thread.

I believe it to be impossible to come up with a definition of art which everyone will agree to - for the purposes of this thread challenge/request, or any or art discussion.

However, it is useful to get people thinking about the issue. And again, which book is selected will say much about what a fan thinks of the hobby and of art.