GMing as Fine Art

[Umbran]

By fine art I'm referering to art created for its own sake, and particularly implying the motivation being the artist's personal vision rather than other considerations. I'm not saying that fine art is necessarily incompatible with other artistic considerations, however, just that it isn't dependent on them, and that they are optional. I'm also not making a quality judgment on my work or anyone else's, I'm contrasting different types of art.

Fair enough. You might also want to include "applied art" in your consideration. If we take fine art to be art for art's sake, and commercial art to be art for profit, we may also have applied art - art that also serves another purpose. A really elegant chair, for example, might be applied art. It may be aesthetically pleasing, but also has a purpose as something to sit on. Profit from sale may not have been a consideration, but being a decent chair was.

A game, then, may not be art *only* for the sake of art, but also have another purpose, and thus be applied, rather than fine.

Even culinary art can be fine art.

Or, perhaps that is another example of applied art. I suppose it could be considered fine - as might appear in a "modern cuisine" restaurant where the dish is presented in a tiny portion to taste, but not expected to be a filling meal. Your excellent Thanksgiving dinner would be applied art - it most definitely is supposed to be a filling and nutritious meal.

I bring up event hosting as a third possibility, specifically in connection with GMing. Event hosting is about accommodating to the needs and comfort of the attendees--making the experience the best it can be for them. It is similar to commercial art in focusing on a goal other than the art itself.

I suppose, as this fits into my "applied' category. In that case, I could never be a fine art GM. I cannot just disregard the experience of the players for the sake of my own artistic vision.

The way I see my GMing is that I am a creator and/or presenter of a world springing from a personal vision intended to produce certain aesthetic experiences in players and myself as we explore a shared imagination environment.

If it is a shared imagination environment, then you are not the sole creator with a personal vision. The sharing means ownership and vision are distributed.

Indeed! I would even assert that the standard mantra that we are there to "have fun" isn't entirely accurate. Although we are present to have a positive experience (hopefully), it seems to me that there are valid expressions of positive role-playing that aren't accurately described as "fun."

You ever experience or read about "Nordic" larp? In some Nordic games, they have what is known as the "two week rule" - any physical injury to a participant that will heal within two weeks is fair game - so, for example, slamming a guy's head into the wall is okay, so long as you stop short of giving him a concussion, or breaking bones. I can certainly see how that might feed into an experience that isn't actually for "fun" in the normal sense of the word.

I'll stand by it as a pretty valid generalization for EN Worlders, though.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

A la Rrose Sélavy

 

[Ovinomancer]

See previous statement about *colloquial* use. Thanks.

But, to play this game, I go to wikipeida, on "art":

"The second, and more recent, sense of the word art as an abbreviation for creative art or fine art emerged in the early 17th century. Fine art refers to a skill used to express the artist's creativity, or to engage the audience's aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of more refined or finer work of art."

The emphasis is mine - some consideration of the value is present in the definition.

Hey, sure, if you want to play narrow semantic games, I guess you've enough of a fig leaf there to justify your telling Sword he was just wrong in his assessment of his games that you don't know anything about. I stand corrected, and apologize for failing to see the narrowly construed meaning that you were using.

(I see that you lampshaded your construction with the word 'colloquially', but you haven't really done any work to show this is true (you just assert it), so that's really not a good argument. Especially since you had to go to the third 'or' in the second definition on wiki to find something that looks close to the way you used the word (further discussion on what 'or' vs 'and' means in a definition is omitted). So, your usage wasn't really very 'colloquial.' Perhaps you mean 'colloquial' to mean 'what I thought the word meant?' In that case, sure, you used it very colloquially.)

 

[Umbran]

Hey, sure, if you want to play narrow semantic games...

Or, if I just want to be clear about what I meant. I recognized that the OP had not fully clarified what he meant - the term has many definitions, and so some discussion of semantics were going to be necessary. I was being clear so we would know if we were talking past each other. The OP seems to have gotten that, and it seems to me we've gone on to be constructive.

So, how about you step away from the accusative stance, and let us talk about game as art, hm?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Or, if I just want to be clear about what I meant. I recognized that the OP had not fully clarified what he meant - the term has many definitions, and so some discussion of semantics were going to be necessary. I was being clear so we would know if we were talking past each other. The OP seems to have gotten that, and it seems to me we've gone on to be constructive.[\quote]
I apologize, again. We must have read different threads, and the one I thought I had read had you in your first response dismissing the OP as wrong without any semantic discussion of the meaning of fine art. My bad?

So, how about you step away from the accusative stance, and let us talk about game as art, hm?

I wasn't aware I had any power to prevent you from taking about anything. I promise to only use it for good!

I had just misread the thread as you issuing a blanket dismissal of the op and then retreating behind semantic arguments so you didn't have to acknowledge or apologize for your own accusative stance. I see now that it's I that have the accusative stance and I that have erred. I'll mark this down as a learning experience. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Guys, guys, let's cool off here. I haven't taken offense at anyone's remarks. Now, bewilderment that few seem to enjoy the idea of playing a game created as fine art--definitely. But not offense.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

You know, for the longest time I thought Umbram and Ovinomancer were the same person.

 

[Umbran]

And that laugh is genuine. Thank you for the perspective.

 

[Umbran]

Now, bewilderment that few seem to enjoy the idea of playing a game created as fine art--definitely. But not offense.

Well, of course, not. Because, as previously noted, creation of fine art is not undertaken for the enjoyment of the artist. If we were to undertake an RPG as fine art, our primary motivations should be, as you say, to evoke aesthetic or emotional experiences in the players (and, if we are considering this a shared effort, perhaps in ourselves as well). Our enjoyment is at best secondary to the experience of the art.

So, maybe the bewilderment at how few of us enjoy the idea is a bit aside the point. Maybe you should ask why so few of use feel the desire, drive, or need to have this as an art experience first. Because, of my artist friends, that's what they refer to - they don't talk about how they enjoy making art. They talk of the internal *need* to make art. Many authors speak, for example, not of how they enjoy process of writing, but that they have a story that *needs* to get out.

I have had some artistic experiences that have really struck home as art - a few of dance, some music, a couple of notable theatre pieces. And, the level of craft in each was exceptional. I think part of the colloquial connection between quality and "fine art" is that, for the experience to really strike home, the quality of the piece, and therefore the skill of the artist, typically has to be very high. That communication isn't easy. I don't know if many artists would claim to have done it in a casual manner. It is, for lack of a better phrase, kind of serious business.

Now remember that most of us are doing this in our spare time, often as one of the major social gatherings of the week or month with our friends. We've had a lot of serious business with our day jobs, our financial concerns, our families - we probably aren't in a space where yet more serious business is called for. That's what makes it a hobby, instead of a personal calling to make art, I suspect.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You know, for the longest time I thought Umbram and Ovinomancer were the same person.

Funny. Also, ironic.