Is D&D Art?

[nedjer]

No, you need to read the link, as your insistence that D&D is not art closely resembles the arguments of those who insisted that Duchamp's Fountain could not be art.

DA doesn't need to be 'right' it's enough right that he articulates the arguments so well

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In no particular order:

Undefinable: Art cannot be defined, so anything can be art. It's just subjective. You don't appear to adhere to this view, as you categorically deny D&D is art.

Clearly, you have not understood my posts.

I have repeatedly said things like "defining art is like defining god, so I won't try," "art is subjective," "what is art to some may not be art to most" and even that "under the right conditions, playing D&D could be art, but it has to involve something more than just the intent to play the game.

IOW, what you claim is not my position is exactly the position I've been espousing the entire damn thread.

Given that art is subjective, it thus follows that what you consider art may include things I will deny are art. That's the nature of subjectivity. And again, please note that I said it was possible to use D&D as an artistic medium, but that I have never seen it used that way...which means there has been no "categorical denial."

No, I'm insisting that a person who uses such definitions should be able to explain why he is using them in a specific way. What, exactly, must be intended to form an intent to create art? You never explain this. You simply pronounce that the intent needed to play D&D is not the intent to create art. When pushed you retreat behind other people's defintiions, which don't discuss whether D&D should or should not be included.

You still missed that the "specific intent to create art" qualifier IS in that article- also from the wiki:

] An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.

and

Often, if the skill is being used in a common or practical way, people will consider it a craft instead of art.

And

Art tends to facilitate intuitive rather than rational understanding, and is usually consciously created with this intention.

The difference between Mark Rothko painting my wall a particular color & pattern in his style and Joe Refurbisher painting my wall the exact same way is that Mark Rothko is intentionally creating an artistic statement.

They are using the same medium- paintapplied to a flat surface- but with entirely different intents. Joe wants to paint the wall in a particular way to make his client happy and get paid. Mark is trying to tell us something, so he is using the medium to do more than it's basic function.

Likewise, D&D's basic function is to formalize the game of pretend. If what you do when you sit down to play the game of D&D is play a formalized game of pretend of D&D rules, then that is all you are doing- no art is generated.

If, OTOH, you and your group decide to trancend the boundaries of a game of pretend and deliver a message- say...dealing with the recent debt ceiling limit debate in the USA- then you've probably created a piece of performance art.

Consider this: there have been a few cases in which people have tried to get stripper dancing and other kinds of public nudity to be considered free speech and/or legitimate, protected works of art. The courts, in evaluating their claims, look to see if anything besides the erotic stimulation of viewers in exchange for $$$- stripper dancing's primary purpose- is going on.

The movants haven't done all that well...but no court has said it was impossible for an ecdysiast to have a performance that transcends mere stripping.

 

[gamerprinter]

Lots of good defintions.

So, not to knock DA, but to get a grip with the definitions. DA is claiming to not define art (which DA states is like defining God), yet he still imposes the idea that art requires intent. Thus DA, is in fact forming a definition, despite the fact he is denying to doing just that.

However, as pointed out by Wrecan, none of the existing definitions of art (including definitions pointed out by DA) require intent as a requirement.

So in fact, by the definitions, intent is not a requirement to create art. Art being the shared experience in the creation as it invokes an emotional response. D&D is a shared experience that invokes an emotional response.

The artist(s) in this case is not just the GM, since the players change through their interjection and participation, the final result - the creation of the D&D experience.

By these definitions, I would argue that the simplist of D&D games, even without props, music, creative dialog (nor even maps) is art. While it is not high art, it is still art.

To argue why playing Monopoly is a game and not art, all the rules and actions taken in the game are the same (based on movement, use of cards - real estate and community chest, etc) for anybody playing the game. There is no creativity required to play Monopoly. Thus playing a game does not in of itself involve art. The game Monopoly does not equal the game D&D, despite both being games. One requires no creativity, the other requires heavy doses of creative on the part of all participants. The Monopoly example by DA does not define the equality between a board game and D&D - they are not the same (not even in the same category).

We can agree that D&D is a game, but we also have to agree that playing an RPG is nothing like any other kind of game (perhaps there are some exceptions, but I cant readily think of any). So using the D&D as a game to define how D&D is not art is insufficient.

Perhaps it will never be accepted by the high artist community, but then as the wiki presents - that kind of art is only one kind and not the only kind. By definition alone (not each of our individual perceptions) D&D is art.

Since art is subjective, many of us including GMs and players might not perceive D&D is art, however this does not negate the fact that D&D is art. If a D&D session played by those who don't perceive it as art and the game session is never recorded or viewed by a non-participant - it is probably relegated to unviewed art, as the larger art community never sees it. Just because its participants does not view it as art (by their own definitons of what art is) does not negate the fact the D&D IS art.

I would argue that 'pretend' no matter if its played by a five year old or a 45 year old is in fact art - by the definitons provided.

 

[Janx]

Danny's been a good sport, and we should chill out. He's already agreed that a D&D session COULD be art. he just hasn't seen it. And he's not responsible for the definition of art, he simply paraphrased one from a public source.

One thing that only a few have picked up on. While the title of this thread is "is D&D Art" The poll doesn't ask that question. It asks if YOUR game is art.

39% of the people think their game is art. The other chunk of people don't think their game is art. That means 61% are playing D&D as a game. 39% are creating art by use of D&D as a medium.

game materials can be art (maps, props, written work)
game sessions could be considered a very private performance art (as I see the example upthread)
Story Hours (retelling of game sessions) can be art
art made by animals can be art (either Found Object or "my medium is that everything I do is carefully cultivated by me from animals)
An ornate tool can be art (there is a difference between a regular S&W revolver with wooden grip and one with carved bone handle and engravings)

Qualifying to be art is of course, subjective. It seems to be an inclusive trait, rather than exclusive. meaning, it doesn't matter is somebody says "that isn't art." because it usually translates into "I don't like it, and I don't think it's art". Whereas, if somebody says "I like it, and I think that's art" then it qualifies as art.

Nobody's driving around, pointing at things and declaring authoritatively "that fire hydrant is not art." However, something happens and it becomes art, when I steal a fire hydrant and put it on display in my gallery.

I suspect the key moment is when a person draws attention to something and says "Look At This"

A plain gun in my holster is just a gun. So is the hammer in my tool box. When I buy a gun with a ivory grips that gleam in the sun, I'm saying, Look At This. If I put that gun on a plaque on my wall, once again Look At This.

Now that might be misconstrued. if I put my rifle on a wall mount over my fireplace, it might just be a place to hold my gun. But it's rather conspicuous that I put it in such an open place. Almost like I'm saying Look At This.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One thing that only a few have picked up on. While the title of this thread is "is D&D Art" The poll doesn't ask that question. It asks if YOUR game is art.

Making poll questions isn't easy, I guess. When you actually get into scientific survey reserach, the minutiae that affect people's responses are hard to believe. The title is just something to get people to read the thread, but I think most people read the actual poll question.

39% of the people think their game is art. The other chunk of people don't think their game is art. That means 61% are playing D&D as a game. 39% are creating art by use of D&D as a medium.

Frankly, this is a greater percentage than I expected. In the early part of this thread (at around 30 votes or so) it was around 20%. The "Is D&D about combat?" thread has only had a yes rate a little over 30%. Frankly, it's kind of encouraging for the hobby, both in that there are a significant number of yes votes and in the diversity of the replies.

 

[gamerprinter]

Nobody's driving around, pointing at things and declaring authoritatively "that fire hydrant is not art." However, something happens and it becomes art, when I steal a fire hydrant and put it on display in my gallery.

I suspect the key moment is when a person draws attention to something and says "Look At This"

A plain gun in my holster is just a gun. So is the hammer in my tool box. When I buy a gun with a ivory grips that gleam in the sun, I'm saying, Look At This. If I put that gun on a plaque on my wall, once again Look At This.

Now that might be misconstrued. if I put my rifle on a wall mount over my fireplace, it might just be a place to hold my gun. But it's rather conspicuous that I put it in such an open place. Almost like I'm saying Look At This.

But D&D is more than just framing a non-art object and calling it art. If doing so is enough to call a gun on a wall art, then D&D is far more components that qualify as art due to emotional response, props, acting, etc. Its more of a combination of multiple artistic components in a shared experience - so that as as far as comparison with other art things, D&D has infinitely more qualifiers then a non-art object pointed to with "look at this".

 

[Janx]

We can agree that D&D is a game, but we also have to agree that playing an RPG is nothing like any other kind of game (perhaps there are some exceptions, but I cant readily think of any). So using the D&D as a game to define how D&D is not art is insufficient.

Actually, I don't think we can agree that D&D is a game. That's probably worthy of its own thread forking. And it too has probably been done before.

Before I begin, make note, I'm presenting a view point as though "it's just a game" people are wrong. In reality, it doesn't really matter how they view the activity of an RPG. My line of discussion is simply a logical exercise.

if I narrowly define a Game as a competitive activity in which one side wins and one side loses or in which a player has 2 possible outcomes Win or Lose, then Monopoly and just about every board, card, sports game is covered.

D&D is not a game as evidenced by the introduction in every edition (and parroted by just about every RPG). A "game of Tag" is also not a game, as played by children. It goes on until recess is over, and score is not kept, and nobody really wins or loses.

If I don't expand my definition of game, these 2 activities are simply misclassified as Games, and are allowed to continue to misuse the term.


Folks who think D&D is a game and can be art, aren't interesting to this discussion. They already think it is more than a game, as it can be art.

Actually, anbody who thinks it can be art, already has an expanded view of what an RPG is.

Folks who think it can't be art and it is just a game, are the interesting population segment.

if you accept my definition of a game is absolute and correct. Then refusing that D&D CAN be art because it is just a game is a logic fault.

If they just agreed its not a game, then the "its just a game" defense can't be used.

If nothing else, consider this, you can still call D&D a game, but that doesn't make it a Game. A session of D&D can be art, but that doesn't make it Art.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...however this does not negate the fact that D&D is art.

Since art is subjective, there is no such objective "fact."

claiming to not define art (which DA states is like defining God), yet he still imposes the idea that art requires intent. Thus DA, is in fact forming a definition, despite the fact he is denying to doing just that.

The idea that art requires intent is actually in the wiki link, as illustrated in my last set of quotes from it.

Looking elswhere on the 'Net, we can see that this is not exactly an uncommon idea:

In my opinion, art requires two things: the artist’s intention in creating art and an audience receiving it as such. Anything outside of these two criteria is questionable.

http://twcdc.com/andycox/art-and-technology/412_student_posts/frances/

For Collingwood, the artist’s intention must be only to manifest the uncontrollable and unknowable emotions he or she has, to unleash them furiously or gently on canvas or on paper, in stone or in clay, and, having done so, the artist is able to recognize these emotions as the truth of what they were feeling, and they feel satisfied for the time being. For Beardsley, an artist clearly must have intention, and this intention may or may not evolve as part of the process of composition. These two are at odds over the intent of artists and how intent affects the creation or appreciation, with both of them having at once a more open and a more restrictive opinion on the matter.

http://thingsthatannoycathy.com/post/426175257/for-collingwood-the-artists-intention-must-be

Next one might ask who is to get the credit in the creation of art with photo editing software. Certainly, the software cannot be the artist for several reasons, not the least of which, the fact that the software has the status of a tool. Furthermore, the software lacks important factors that would make it an artist, such as intention. Software cannot have intention because it is not autonomous. Software carries out the tasks and processes that have been programmed into it as the user requests them. Likewise with the machine which runs the software; there is no autonomy thus no intention and therefore no artist. So if neither the software nor the machine is the artist, who then is the artist? The answer may be that the person using the software is the artist.

http://groups.drew.edu/philoso/Arch...nce of Modern Technology Has Affected Art.htm

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually, I don't think we can agree that D&D is a game. That's probably worthy of its own thread forking. And it too has probably been done before.

I have considered several other big poll/thread topics on the nature of D&D, this being one of them. I felt it unwise to saturate the market by starting multiple such threads simultaneously, but if anyone else has a discussion to start, I invite it. This is one of the main things I come to ENWorld for.

As to the actual issue you brought up, I think D&D is a game in a very loose sense (perhaps the same way it is an artistic endeavor if such is loosely defined). I tend to think of games as having more specific goals and outcomes than D&D does. If you play chess, someone wins or there's a tie. If you play Scrabble, everyone has a score. If you play Mass Effect 2, there's a mission objective at the end of the level. That said, kids making their hands into a gun shape and running around the playground shouting "pyoo pyoo" at each other can also be called a game, and that's more in the direction of D&D (freeform, but clearly intended to be fun).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But D&D is more than just framing a non-art object and calling it art. If doing so is enough to call a gun on a wall art, then D&D is far more components that qualify as art due to emotional response, props, acting, etc.

The act of taking a found object and presenting it as art involves the conscious act of taking that thing and asking us to consider it in a way beyond its basic function. The framed gun on a wall, Duchamp's Fountain, etc., are all asking to be considered for more than just a gun, more than just a urinal. Until that point, though, the gun is just a gun, the urinal is just a urinal.

The basic function of D&D is to be played as a game of formalized pretend, and as such, many players see it simply as such. If, however, someone plays the game in such a way as to intentionally take it beyond that, to ask us to consider it in a way beyond its function as a game, they may indeed create art.

And like I've said before, I've never seen that.

As to the actual issue you brought up, I think D&D is a game in a very loose sense (perhaps the same way it is an artistic endeavor if such is loosely defined). I tend to think of games as having more specific goals and outcomes than D&D does. If you play chess, someone wins or there's a tie. If you play Scrabble, everyone has a score. If you play Mass Effect 2, there's a mission objective at the end of the level. That said, kids making their hands into a gun shape and running around the playground shouting "pyoo pyoo" at each other can also be called a game, and that's more in the direction of D&D (freeform, but clearly intended to be fun).

Re: games & outcomes

There are multitudinous games in which the only outcome is the player loses to the game (pinball, many arcade shooters). The only question is how many points you score as compared to other players.

The games of catch or tag have no win/loss outcomes, just participation.