Is D&D Art?

[Janx]

Certainly, as long as you keep in mind that an artistic/aesthetic statement is not inherently "Art"- it could also be "Design."



If he weren't dead, I'd say that's a job for Andy Warhol.

I just read most of the Art article on wikipedia. The intro, classification disputes and art, class and value stood out as applicable.

My interpretation of it makes me think that the "right" D&D session could be considered a performance art, and that we are having what they call a Classification Dispute.

If we both agree that the wiki article is the final word, but we don't agree on the interpretation/application of its meaning to determining if D&D is art, what next?

Side note: my dog generated painting represented by me as Art probably qualifies as a form of Found Object art.

Do we move on the the Heresy thread?

 

[Beginning of the End]

Let me ask the reciprocal question: if playing D&D is art, then why isn't playing Monopoly art? Especially for those among us who use funky voices in the manner of out playing pieces, or who go all "Snidely Whiplash" when someone lands on Boardwalk with a hotel on it...

My definition of art tends not to be as broad a Scott McCloud's (which, paraphrasing from memory, is something roughly equivalent to "anything which isn't directly aimed at providing basic necessities of life or procreation"). But it's still fairly broad and I think McCloud isn't far off.

However, I do think that art requires a creative act. So a typical session of Monopoly isn't art because there is no inherent creative act to the game. If you start acting out roles or using funny voices, then there probably is some artistic component to the activity.

An RPG, on the other hand, inherently requires a creative act in its playing.

Note that improv theater is primarily made up of what are referred to as improv games. When improv actors do their thing, most of them are intending to play a game.

Another interesting crux here would be, say, Pictionary. Ostensibly artistic activity as an inherent part of the game (drawing), but one could argue that it's not a creative act but rather a communicative one. Is a deer crossing sign a work of art or an act of communication?

Is the distinction even meaningful? Possibly. (I'd argue it also provides us with the difference between a shopping list and a poem.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In no particular order:

If we both agree that the wiki article is the final word,

No, its just a working definition, one of many out there. As long as there are sentient, creative minds out there, you'll probably see the definition of art expanding.

An RPG, on the other hand, inherently requires a creative act in its playing.

Not IME: I've seen plenty of players who treat their PCs as nothing more than hyper-detailed wargame units, and several who essentially play themselves in the game but with "KEWL POWERZ."

My interpretation of it makes me think that the "right" D&D session could be considered a performance art, and that we are having what they call a Classification Dispute.

AND

Ostensibly artistic activity as an inherent part of the game (drawing), but one could argue that it's not a creative act but rather a communicative one.

Just like sliding down a snowy mountain on a couple pieces of wood doesn't necessarily mean you're skiing, just because you're drawing doesn't make it art. Ever sketch out a map for someone who is lost?

But as I've said numerous times, playing a game could be art under the right circumstances: I just haven't ever seen it.

Side note: my dog generated painting represented by me as Art probably qualifies as a form of Found Object art.

In exactly the same way as my Joe Satriani example waaaay upthread. Your dog (and Satch) created something that was not art (the painting, the noodling in the studio) that was later re-purposed/transformed by the actions of another entity AS art (you with your dog's painting, Satch's producer sampling the noodling for a rap recording).

 

[Hussar]

On GamerPrinter's very cool map above.

I think intent really gets to the heart of this. Why did GP make this map? Was it simply functional? Or was there more? Honestly, looking at that, I would call that map (and certainly others he's done) art. But, I would say that the creation of that there was more to drawing out that map than just providing something for the game. It's gone beyond what the game needs or expects.

Most people wouldn't call a quick sketch on a Chessex map to be art. A fair amount of play in D&D has nothing to do with creating anything as well. I can't speak for anyone else, but, when I sit down to play D&D, I'm not thinking about anything beyond the game we're playing. There's no larger meaning or message. It's just a very complicated version of Cops and Robbers.

 

[gamerprinter]

On GamerPrinter's very cool map above.

I think intent really gets to the heart of this. Why did GP make this map? Was it simply functional? Or was there more? Honestly, looking at that, I would call that map (and certainly others he's done) art. But, I would say that the creation of that there was more to drawing out that map than just providing something for the game. It's gone beyond what the game needs or expects.

True, but I do the same for my home games, and I try to do the same with the prepared dialog, scene introductions, the pace aside from the actual encounters - its the way I game prep and play my own home sessions of D&D/PF. I want to evoke some immersion, so the way I run a game, and the maps I present are all part of the same experience.

I do the same for commercial work.

Edit: also in my design the intent is not to make it pretty, rather to allow the reader of the map to determine what the environment is like, what kind of flora exists, so as a GM he can more readily detail what the PCs see when asking about the scene of a given encounter. The text of the adventure states the distance between the bridge and the top of the water as 20'. With this known quantity, the GM can guess by the depth in the water that it might be 20' to the bottom of that depression in the river beneath the bridge. My intent on the map is to more readily describe what exists at the location - more in a scientific way (I stick with real geological land forms as part of the design).

It may seem 'artistic' but the intent was to provide as much information as possible within a simple map so the GM gets a better description as to what is going on. I really didn't do it for the sake of art, however, I cannot escape my understanding of artistic balance, color theory and all the elements of design in any concept I put pen to paper with. I want it to look 'real' within the confines of hand-work. If I draw something poorly, it could alter what the GM really sees.

Given that this is my intent, does that in any way take away the fact that the map is also a piece of art?

Most people wouldn't call a quick sketch on a Chessex map to be art. A fair amount of play in D&D has nothing to do with creating anything as well. I can't speak for anyone else, but, when I sit down to play D&D, I'm not thinking about anything beyond the game we're playing. There's no larger meaning or message. It's just a very complicated version of Cops and Robbers.

We have a whiteboard too. We tend to use it more than the maps, but I usually only make maps of major encounters or larger view maps such as towns and countryside. When its combat intensive, heavy rolling of dice, needing to know positions of all combatants on the table - a pretty map doesn't necessarily add anything.

I just mix that kind of D&D play, interspersed with more artistic presentation, but then, that's just me.

GP

 

[gamerprinter]

My college paper for art history was 15th century armor. What I discovered in researching for it was that armor created in Italy had design elements within the structure of the armor that resembled Romanesque churches of Italy, while German, French and English armor tended to have design elements that resembled Gothic churches.

While the armor itself is intended for effective protection in battle, thus was engineered as a functional device - it contained design elements that clearly reflected the art design of the day in whichever locale it was being created.

There is even one example of armor created in the Italian Alps region that contained both Romanesque and Gothic elements in its design, since the smith who created it was located in a border region that separated Gothic from Romanesque appreciation. A merging of design forms.

Thus engineered devices for use in war, while designed to be most effective cannot escape the artistic expressions known by the designers who created them. They weren't intended to be art, yet they can be recognized today as art (those that survived.)

The Louvre in Paris has an entire wing dedicated to knight's armor and that's an art museum, not a history museum. Thus armor which is not intended to be art is art, in spite of that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've been to the Louvre, as well as some of the great armory museums of England, France, Germany, Italy and Russia, so i've seen the kinds of armor you're talking about. And those armors are the exception, not the rule. Most suits were largely unembellished.

In addition, as I'm sure you well know, some of those stylistic flourishes were believed to be or actually were functional, like fluting or ribbing. So while aesthetically pleasing, that attractiveness was a byproduct of function- like how in architecture domes & flying buttresses can be appealing, but the basic elements of their form is dictated by physics.

 

[pemerton]

But the rules of an RPG are not designed to create art. They are designed to formalize the game of pretend.

This is a contentious claim. For example, I don't think that it is true of the rules for The World, The Flesh and The Devil.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I didn't see anything there that contradicts my statement. All I saw were rules for a game of pretend, not the strictures of a school of art.

 

[gamerprinter]

In addition, as I'm sure you well know, some of those stylistic flourishes were believed to be or actually were functional, like fluting or ribbing. So while aesthetically pleasing, that attractiveness was a byproduct of function- like how in architecture domes & flying buttresses can be appealing, but the basic elements of their form is dictated by physics.

Oh yes, that was the point of my research paper. The Gothic fluting and ribbing provides actual engineered enhancements to the structure of the armor to make it better stand up to blows by weapons. The same for the Romanesque designed Italian armors, the 'rounded' forms provided the structural strength of a circle or dome. One can appreciate the artistic qualities of the armor, yet one cannot deny the engineered effectiveness of those designs.

Also I'm not talking about the embellishments (they added that too on the finest armor), I'm discussing the unembellished structure of the armor itself.