GMing as Fine Art

[Celebrim]

I reject the 'high art', 'commercial art', 'handicraft' divide. Art in my mind is either of more exceptional craftsmanship, or it is of lesser craftsmanship. But the medium of a work of art or its status or whom it was made for separating art is I think only classist pretension. That upside down toilet counts as high art only because it was presented to people who consider themselves important. In fact, it's not art nor should the guy who signed it receive any recognition simply because of who he presents the art to.

But the guy who made the toilet, presenting it to be urinated in made a darn good urinal. Maybe he deserves some credit. The fact that the art is meant to be appreciated and used by ordinary people, in no way diminishes the art. Indeed, a lot of the best art for the past 100 years has been "commercial art". And I'm inclined to think that 100 years from now, people looking back won't think much of the "fine art" but rather think the finer art was the commercial art.

So that said, I think every DM should be striving to improve his craftsmanship to a very high level, so that his work could be accounted high art in the sense of being very well done indeed. I think that RPing can be an art form, and that those of us that love the medium, should be doing our best to be great artists, to inspire each other to better art, and when we can to share our art with each other and the larger world as a thing worth experiencing and celebrating.

 

[steenan]

I would never consider GMing a fine art. An RPG session and its emotional impact is not the GM's own creation. In practice, the GM's creative input is usually minority in all but the most railroaded (or participationist) games.

On the other hand, I definitely thing that RPG, in general, have a potential to be art. It is a very specific medium, with the performers and the audience being the same people. But it can be emotionally powerful, it can be aesthetically engaging, it can explore and reflect on important themes. I don't see any reason not to play in this way and I see no reason for refusing to call it "art".

 

[Umbran]

I would never consider GMing a fine art. An RPG session and its emotional impact is not the GM's own creation.

I don't know that it being uniquely owned is a limiter. Theatre can be fine art, and it is most certainly a collaborative effort. Same for dance performance - ballet, for example.

I reject the 'high art', 'commercial art', 'handicraft' divide.

Well, the trio that has effective been suggested is "fine art", "commercial art", and "applied art", which I am not sure is the same thing as what you mention here. We are defining things not by who the audience is, or necessarily by the quality of the work, but by the purpose of the work, in a general sense.

 

[Wicht]

Well, the trio that has effective been suggested is "fine art", "commercial art", and "applied art",...

I could get on board with applied art, as regards the average game. As it is also done professionally, I think that commercial art certainly applies to those designers who get paid for their work in world-building. As it is the same activity, only with one getting paid and one not, I am not sure what that denotes.

 

[Celebrim]

We are defining things not by who the audience is, or necessarily by the quality of the work, but by the purpose of the work, in a general sense.

That 'purpose' of the work is inextricably linked to audience. To the average person, a painting is a luxury item. A typical one produced for the fine art market will sell at around $30,000. Those by more famous artists will command 3 or 4 times as much. Museum ordained art will fetch 3 or 4 times as much again. Even a hobby artists painting will fetch $300-$400 dollars just to recoup the cost of paint and canvas. For the intended market of wealthy art investors, these prices are affordable and reasonable investments, because future collectors are pretty much guaranteed to see them as ways of storing value. Also, publically funded museums and large private endowments ensure that by and large the value of the investment stays stable. So 'fine art' is pretty much inextricable from, "Art produced for an upper class audience." It's notable that even in reproduction, much of this art doesn't end up on the walls of your average middle class home owner. The populist appreciation of paintings stalled sometime before WW1. There are a few exceptions - Thomas Kinkaide, for example - that produce mass produced affordable art explicitly for a middle class audience, but this art is sneered at by the fine art scene for reasons that I feel are inextricably linked to economics and classist hubris. But by and large, the mass appreciation of painting as fine art stalled sometime around impressionism. Your average person couldn't tell you who was a hot and important modern painter. This is a very different situation than even 50 years ago.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that society as a whole has stopped consuming visual media or art. Pixar makes a ton of money. Skyrim was enormously successful. Mad Max: Thunder Road was visually arresting and popular. Your average video game or movie contains thousands of digital paints produced by dozens or even hundreds of artists. The posters, art prints, and so forth associated with the art that the larger body of the public is actually consuming is on their walls and what they regularly view for pleasure. All of this popular entertainment is produced primarily for aesthetic purposes, but rather than being sold to a single wealthy individual seeking some sort of status statement, it's consumed in smaller affordable lots by a very large number of people. That doesn't make the art less intended solely for the enjoyment of the viewer, that it appeals to a large number of people rather than to a person that prizes primarily distinctiveness.

 

[steenan]

I don't know that it being uniquely owned is a limiter. Theatre can be fine art, and it is most certainly a collaborative effort. Same for dance performance - ballet, for example.

Have you read the rest of my post?

I state that a session of RPG can be art, exactly as a performance is. I disagree with GMing being an art.

A symphonic concert is art. Directing it, isn't.

 

[Umbran]

Have you read the rest of my post?

Yes, I did. I just fundamentally disagree with it on a major point. Let's not conflate disagreement with ignorance, hm?

We can set aside the question of whether a director is an artist, for the moment, because the GM is by no means just a director. The GM creates a great deal of the content, and presents it to an audience (the players). They are frequently doing as much, if not more, playing of roles than any other person at the table. How can such a person somehow be less of an artist than the players?

The folks who create sets for stage and screen productions? They're artists. The people who act out the roles of all but the central characters? They're still artists. How is the GM not then an artist too?

 

[Bagpuss]

I state that a session of RPG can be art, exactly as a performance is. I disagree with GMing being an art.

A symphonic concert is art. Directing it, isn't.

But is play writing art? Or only the play when it is performed with actors?

Is the written music itself art or only when it is performed?

 

[steenan]

But is play writing art? Or only the play when it is performed with actors?
Is the written music itself art or only when it is performed?

Both are art, IMO.
But the role of a GM is very different from a playwright or a composer.

In my experience, the sessions that could be called "art" had less than average GM control and were driven strongly by player creative input.

And I had never seen GM notes that would be as inspiring to read as Macbeth.