Is D&D Art?

[pemerton]

There is no way in which D&D is art. There may be elements that are artistic, but the whole is not compatible with art because the mechanic elements are cannot be described having art as their product

In my view this presupposes a contentious view of what the mechanical elements are, and what they are for.

For elaboration, see the 900+ posts on the currently active "Dissociated mechanics" thread!

No - it's a game, not art. The conscious focus is not on aesthetic creation. Things that work for art often don't work for gaming, and vice versa. Eg in an RPG I find cliches & stereotypes are often BETTER than subtle & deep characterisation & plots, because the game needs stuff to be immediately and easily identifiable by the participants.

I don't think the cliche issue is that relevant. Most TV dramas, for example, depend heavily on cliche and stereotype to make their plots work within the rather tight production constraints by which they're governed (mass audience, limited timeframe, people are watching around ads and while doing other things like cooking, eating etc). But they're still art (in the relevant sense).

I think the question of conscious focus is relevant. But complicated. Part of the point of narrativistly-oriented mechanics is that, if the GM uses them properly at the stage of sceneframing, and if the players have built their PCs correctly in accordance with them, then application of the action resolution rules at the stage of scene resolution will produce satisfying drama, provided that the players are prepared to play their PCs to the hilt. (See this blog for elaboration.)

So narrativist RPGs are designed so that, by playing the game of advocating their PCs rather than consciously thinking about aesthetic priorities, the players produce art (or, at least, story). If aesthetic consciousness was a prerequisite for successful creation of art, then narrativist RPG design would be incoherent by definition. I'm prepared to treat this as a reductio on the requirement of concsious aesthetic priorities.

(An unflattering comparison - to do colour-by-numbers, a child doesn't have to have conscius aesthetic priorities. That's part of the point. But what is produced is still (low-grade) art.)

I voted yes. I created my game world and the races and how magic works. I made up religions, societies and laws. I even did weather patterns.

So how is this different that what a novelist or a painter does. I consider books a form of art.

I think "D&D as art" comes about during dm prep.

When I DM I always make my own stories, settings, NPCs, etc. So in that sense definitely, I'm telling a story.

When I'm a player it depends on the DM I think. They're creating their story, so usually no, I'm not creating art. It depends how involved they let the players get though.

I don't play in a fully No Myth fashion, but for me this sort of GM worldbuilding is the least interesting respect in which D&D might be art. In part, because it's not anything particularly special about RPGing - it's something like planning for, or rough drafting, a novel.

My thinking is along these lines:

--When D&D the Game is played, by people working together, a story is generated.

--A story, by most definitions of the term, is a form of art.

Therefore, playing D&D generates a form of art.

<snip>

I refer to two Story Hours, both first publicly posted on ENWorld, one by Admin Piratecat, and another by a former regular forum user Sepulchrave. Both stories directly stemmed from excellent roleplay by gamers, playing for the communal fun of one another, but generated truly awe-inspiring drama, plot, age-old dilemmas, and in some cases memorable moments for people who never knew the original gamers in question.

This doesn't really fit with my conception of "D&D as art either" - because this seems to me to not really be "playing D&D as art" but rather "retelling the playing of D&D as art".

I see it as quite the opposite. I see the art come about more as the players portray characters, people other than themselves. There's a whole lot more art in that drama, when well done, than in any prep-work I do as a GM.

This is closer to why I voted yes - its the play itself that is the art - although personally for my group it's not the theatrical dimension (we're not actors, even amateur ones) but the narrative dimension that is engaging (for the participants, at least).

However, if the DM created the adventure on his own, it could be considered creative writing.

I like my D&D art to be created by all the participants in the course of play.

with proper roleplaying it could be considered a performance art with a very limited audience - as in all the actors include the GM and the players, as well as an audience of the GM and players, since it happens that the GM doesn't necessarily know what the players will do or say.

I think that the play of RPGs, as art, has only the participants as its audience. It's not (or typically not) "performance art" analogous to theatrics or even a happening. It's closer, in my view, to spontaneous (although structured) creative writing, with the participant authors also the sole audience.

Yes.

<snip>

how can an activity based around creating fictional characters and moving them through stories --be they heavily scripted, lightly scripted, completely emergent, and/or solely based around killing things and taking their stuff-- not be a kind of art? If you decide certain modes or subjects of storytelling disqualify a work from being art, then quite a lot fiction and film would also cease being art.

<snip>

(it's positively awful art most of the time, but find me a discipline where that isn't true)

Agreed with all this.

When I play D&D <snip> I'm not there to create anything to be consumed by anyone else, which, in my mind anyway, for something to be about creating art, I'd want to share it with other people.

I don't create for anyone else but my fellow participants in the game. But I don't think this is an obstacle to it being art (private drawings, or singing or playing an instrument for one's own amusement, is still art - the pleasure is pleasure in the creation of something with aesthetic value).

I think the fact that it's the participants who are the audience goes a long way to ameliorating the awfulness of RPG art. For many of us at least, even our mediocre creations are fun and inspiring for us, although they would have no worth for anyone else. (Even people who can't sing a note can get a lot of pleasure from bellowing out a tune!)

 

[S'mon]

I think the question of conscious focus is relevant. But complicated. Part of the point of narrativistly-oriented mechanics is that, if the GM uses them properly at the stage of sceneframing, and if the players have built their PCs correctly in accordance with them, then application of the action resolution rules at the stage of scene resolution will produce satisfying drama, provided that the players are prepared to play their PCs to the hilt. (See this blog for elaboration.)

So narrativist RPGs are designed so that, by playing the game of advocating their PCs rather than consciously thinking about aesthetic priorities, the players produce art (or, at least, story). If aesthetic consciousness was a prerequisite for successful creation of art, then narrativist RPG design would be incoherent by definition. I'm prepared to treat this as a reductio on the requirement of concsious aesthetic priorities.

I think there's definitely a good argument that story-making games (including narrativist/premise games) do involve art creation, because they are let's-make-a-story. Whereas D&D as designed has story creation as a byproduct of play, not the focus of play.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure about that statistic there. I think quite a few people have a very strong conscious intent to create art. Look at all the people on these boards discussing how various literary and other artistic sources influence their games, or those keeping and publishing in some form records of their campaigns. Certainly I've discovered or developed the intent to produce art over time (which is why I started this thread), and while I don't speak for everyone, I doubt that there are 999,999 gamers without any artistic aspirations for every person like me in this respect.

Your milage may vary.

I do all the stuff you mention but in order to make a better game, not to make art. Even when I'm painting a mini, the focus is on how it will look in play, not in how it works as an artwork.

 

[Ahnehnois]

NB this is the definition of art YOU gave in the OP:

True, I did. I also said it was a tentative definition and invited people to use their own (which some people have done). So I agree (as subsequently posted) with the idea of intent as being a relevant factor and think that such intent may be present in at least some cases of D&D, but I don't consider that it is absolutely necessary in all cases.

I think there's definitely a good argument that story-making games (including narrativist/premise games) do involve art creation, because they are let's-make-a-story. Whereas D&D as designed has story creation as a byproduct of play, not the focus of play.

Some people would describe D&D as a story-making game.

I do all the stuff you mention but in order to make a better game, not to make art. Even when I'm painting a mini, the focus is on how it will look in play, not in how it works as an artwork.

Honestly, it amazes me that people will put that much effort and creative energy into a game, period. Moreso that after all that the product of that effort can't be described as art. If you enjoy doing it, I suppose it's all good.

Yes, it is a high barrier, but a crucial one. The creation of art is a conscious, volitional act. Ther has to be intent. And not just to do whatever it is you are doing, but to actually create art.

...

I have minors in Literature, Art and Art History, play 3 instruments & voice, had works in my college's permanent collection (until they were destroyed), have designed pieces of jewelry valued over $50K, have a personal collection of books in the thousands, and more than 5K CDs...

All of which have influenced my PC and campaign designs at some point or another. In another thread on these boards, I likened designing a PC to writing a short story.

And with all of that, I still voted "No."

I guess you have more restrictive standards than I do on this issue. And a different style of playing D&D. Fair enough.

 

[Umbran]

Again, though, if you look at art history, one of the criteria for calling something "art" is usually- but not universally- that it was created with the intent of being art.

Yes, it is a high barrier, but a crucial one. The creation of art is a conscious, volitional act. Ther has to be intent. And not just to do whatever it is you are doing, but to actually create art.

You seem to have drifted from "usually - but not universally" to "crucial".

When a Shaker sat down to make a chest of drawers, as I understand it, the primary intent was to make a chest of drawers. If anything, the intent was to be ascetic, rather than aesthetic. But I have a hard time considering the surviving pieces anything but art.

So, I don't know how crucial that intent is, how far in the forefront it really sits.

But, anyway, it is possible we can set it aside. When you sit down at a gaming table, you sit down with the intent of having some variant of "a good time" or "fun" right? The exercise is not purely functional, correct? You're intending to "enjoy" it - to have some aesthetically pleasurable experience, usually to be shared with at least a few others...

Thus, art.

It may be bad art. It may be cheap pop art. Most properly, it probably classifies as folk art, of the geek persuasion. But I don't think we need to be talking about the intent to paint the Mona Lisa to call it art.

And, I am not sure I understand the resistance to calling it art. Why shouldn't we call it art? What's so wrong with that?

 

[Gryph]

Again, though, if you look at art history, one of the criteria for calling something "art" is usually- but not universally- that it was created with the intent of being art. It is a conscious and deliberate act. IOW, there is a distinction between when Jackson Pollack merely threw paint at a canvas- say, because he was bored or upset- and when he threw paint at a canvas to create Ocean Grayness. There is a difference between when Joe Satriani noodles around or practices his scales and progressions, and when he actually sits down to compose.

To further burwongle this up, something's status as art may change from Not Art to Art depending upon presentation. If Satriani's producer has the tape running, and then uses Joe's noodlings as the sample in a rap tune of his own, then those noodlings become art...as well as possible copyright infringement, violation of fiduciary duties, and so forth. (See also Duchamp's Urinal.)

Sturgeons' Law aside, 99.9999% of the time when you sit down to play an RPG, you and your cronies are not consciously setting out to create a work of art. It may be aesthetic in some way, but without that intent, it falls short.

To further distinguish, the story hours are art, almost by definition. Unlike the playing of the game, the person doing a story hour is intentionally relating to others a story in (presumably) the best and most entertaining way they can, and storytelling is definitely an art form. One story hour may be demonstrably better than others, but all at least pass the threshold test of being intentional practice of an art form.

So unless you tape your game and release a documentary Rhapsody in Drow, in D-minor as a deliberate attempt to create a work of art, I'm going to believe it falls short of being art, no matter how well played.

Have to spread XP around, etc.

Thanks for a much clearer statement of what I was trying to get at upthread. Deliberate effort was what I was groping blindly towards.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

When a Shaker sat down to make a chest of drawers, as I understand it, the primary intent was to make a chest of drawers. If anything, the intent was to be ascetic, rather than aesthetic. But I have a hard time considering the surviving pieces anything but art.

So, I don't know how crucial that intent is, how far in the forefront it really sits.

Heh. I didn't think we'd come around so quickly to the underpinnings of my narrow definition. This was why I said that there had to be both (craft) technique and discernment--meaning discernment aesthetically. Like many things with a mix of essentially two very different elements, strength in one may cover some weakness in the other.

My dad does amateur woodworking, however sometimes at a level beyond many professionals. Long experience can be like that sometimes. He might:

1. Make a servicable cabinet--say for a shop or closet. There is a lot of craft technique involved, because he has that woodworker mindset of even the things you can't see, he knows about. But there really isn't any conscious aesthetic intent--with the crucial exception of keeping the thing from being outright ugly. He won't paint it neon orange, and he will remove rough edges. But the intent is that the thing fade into the background as something useful. Any aesthetic sensibilities informed are going to be almost entirely on the "appreciation of form over style."

2. Make a kitchen cabinet or table. There is even more craft technique involved, and now it is also in the service of an aesthetic intent. For example, the grain of the wood will be checked for beauty instead of merely flaws. And then a stain is selected in order to bring out the natural beauty of the wood. Thus, discernment. But technically, this is a mix of craft and art, in the usual senses of the words, because the thing produced still has a practical purpose separate from any art involved.

3. Make a wooden sculpture. Taking a particular piece of walnut block left over because of a big knot in it, and seeing that the grain is particularly interesting, then building a frame around it so that the grain is brought out by working the block into a spiral on a lathe. Again, several craft technique were necessary (particularly on how to get the block onto the lathe in a non-standard fashion), but all of this is being driven by aesthetic discernment in service of pure art.

All of these example he has done, BTW. I think all of them are possible in an RPG, but I think the middle one by far the most common--and due to the medium and somewhat ad hoc nature of the process, unlikely to produce anything that we would consciously hold up as art worth mentioning--except at moments.

1. Kick the doors in, kill the monsters, take their stuff. You might do this exceedingly well, both GM and players, and you might get a certain aesthetic enjoyment out of the form.

2. Play mainly to play the game and tell a story, mixed in with all kinds of social fun and so on. There are times when you are mainly focused on the craft techniques of the thing, and times when you go for certain aesthetic discernment--and thus also times when the two come together. If they really click, you might get good art.

3. This last one, where all the craft techniques are pushed towards and inform an aesthetic preference I think is probably more sought than achieved, but it is certainly possible to pull it off for short periods. Like any group effort, I would think there would have to be both individual and group unity and ability in both the underlying techniques and the aesthetic discernment to get very far. That's possible, merely not something that happens often in a medium as young as roleplaying, done almost entirely as a hobby.

 

[ryushima2011]

I think is both, cause on one hand you don't play to create art, but on the other hand D&D is the way in which you artistically express yourself.

 

[gamerprinter]

I have to qualify myself, when I suggested that D&D could be considered a performance art - it only applies to certain styles of gameplay, that many do not do in their games. For those who just kill monsters and take their stuff as their primary D&D activity, then no D&D is not art.

However, if the interactivity between GM and players involves some level of actual 'roleplay' where problem solving is combined with use of spoken dialog created on the fly as in 'impromtu acting' then an RPG very much emulates a non-theater performance art experience. If your RPG group does not do this, then no, your style of D&D is not art.

So its difficult to define the artistic attributes of a given RPG game, when so many play the game differently.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Moreso that after all that the product of that effort can't be described as art.

It takes a lot of effort to build a log cabin or grow a crop, but it probably won't be considered art by most.

You seem to have drifted from "usually - but not universally" to "crucial".

Not really: I always considered it crucial, but while I'm in the majority (at least according to what I was taught getting my AH minor), I'm fully aware that others differ in opinion, thus, "not universally." I can also accept that a conscious mind may create something so aesthetically moving that it may be considered art by some, so again, not "universally."

(Also, i'm using "crucial" in it's weakest sense- "of great importance"- rather than "absolutly vital." Like how John Elway's last 2 seasons in the NFL illustrated a great defense is crucial but not vital to winning a Superbowl.)

As for the Shakers, I would say that falls into the lesson of Duchamp. The original craftsmen who created the style were probably not creating art, they were creating serviceable furniture. Those who followed and refined the aesthetic in later years were doing so consciously with a template in mind, knowing the template was aesthetically pleasing. At the very least, this is design, and possibly art.

But I still don't see playing a RPG rising to that level absent intent.