Is D&D Art?

[wolfpunk]

I think it is just a game, I want it to be fun for my players in the moment, but once that moment has passed, I never play it over again, I never talk about it (well maybe the comedic moments) or try to get others who were not there to imagine it's beauty as a masterpiece.

I certainly can't sell a spot at my table as a means to experience a piece of art.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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?

I may not be the best one to answer this, but I think that "art" is something that can be judged on aesthetic merit. Perhaps some people would rather not feel like their casual games are subject to such judgment (an entirely valid point of view).

Or perhaps there is an association with the academia behind art and a sense that "art" is stodgy, cabalistic, or simply not fun. (Hence, some posters have implied a dichotomy between game and art in their answers).

For the record, it is not my intent to judge people's games as good or bad. I'm more looking at it as a right brain-left brain thing*, and trying to ask whether or not D&D is fundamentally creative in nature (as opposed to being a more mechanical exercise). I started the poll because I though "art" was the best one-word description for the distinction I was trying to make. That said, I did suggest for people to define the term themselves.

*Hemispheric differences have been somewhat exaggerated in popular culture, but they do exist.

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.

An interesting paradigm for describing play styles.

 

[gamerprinter]

When considering the subject art - the academia behind the art in my mind means absolutely nothing regarding 'art in a game'. In fact as a pro freelance artist, I don't consider the academia to mean anything at all.

So that issue shouldn't cloud the waters of discussion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Or to put it this way: something may have all the hallmarks of being considered X and yet may still not be considered X because of it's context. Ditto the state of being non-X.

Frex: if someone were to call me the "N-word", it would be an insult. (An insult is X.) However, if someone were to call me the "N-word" in the context of a roast, or in the possessive sense in a rap song, it would not be considered an insult. (Not X.)

Similarly, if someone were to call me "boy", it is probably not an insult. (Not X.) But if someone calls me "boy" in a certain context, with intent, it most definitely is an insult. (It is X.)

The conscious intent and context makes the difference.

So I stand by my position that without the intent, even the most aesthetically pleasing RPG session probably does not rise to the level of art.

 

[Mallus]

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.

This is a great point, Danny. Intent (also concept) does matter. It's what separates a drop cloth from a Drip painting. But I think it's a point that works in service of the idea playing role-playing games creates art.

By giving their PCs personalities, goals, motivations, mannerisms, and frequently background stories, all the good stuff we're encouraged to do before and during the game, the players are writing and developing fictional characters. How is it meaningfully different from what authors and actors do? It's still fiction writing and performance. It's even done for much the same reason; entertaining an audience (including the creator), albeit a very small and specific one. That sure looks like the intent to create something art-like to me.

Basically, any creative act the players engage in with their characters not directly related to "winning" the given scenario is a form of characterization. You don't typically characterize your rook in Chess, or your hat in Monopoly. You do that to characters in fiction. And fiction-making is art-making by definition, no?

Then there's the whole "exploring a fictional space" angle. I'm not convinced there's an important difference between exploring Middle Earth as a reader and exploring Room 17a in the module D1, The Dungeons of Desolate Desolation, other than you're a passive explorer in the former and an active explorer in the latter. In each case you're nosing around a make-believe world in the guise of another, hungry to discover "what's new" and "what happens next".

When you boil a lot of narrative art down to it's core, you get something that looks like gaming. But perhaps that says more about me as a reader and general art-consumer than it does about art... either way, it's an interesting old chestnut to discuss.

 

[Janx]

I voted yes.

Here's why:

video games just recently won the recognition that they are 'art' and speech, per some case in California where they were trying to discriminate against games and labeling as opposed to laxer standards versus movies.

Through the game, the GM is creating content, and the players are creating events with that content. It's certainly a form of speech and thus is protected by whichever ammendment covers that.

To me, that's good enough for credit as 'art'.

Despite the G in RPG standing for Game, I don't consider table-top RPGs to be a game. As virtually every RPG on the planet has a short blurb saying "this is not like a traditional game in that there are no winners or losers.."

A game is a competition, where one side wins, the other loses. Even a cooperative game like Shadoes over Camelot has a winner(s), and a loser(s).

Most RPGs don't even consider "dying" to be losing (despite what players might think). Nor do they consider the GM to be in a strictly adversarial role.

Thus, I do not consider an RPG to be a true game. Not by my strict definition. But I'm not going to lobby that the name RPG be changed.

So is the RolePlaying Experience an art? Some GM's are very good at it. So it's definitely a skill and a craft.

Rollercoasters are an experience as well. And some designers are better than others. In their own group, I imagine some designers are considered artists of the craft.

I don't see how recognizing it as an Art interferes with other people's view that an RPG is just a game. And given its artistic commonalities with other things, it's an Art.

 

[Janx]

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.

What about performance art?

The Satch noodling on stage in front of an audience. Is that art?
What if I sell tickets to watch me paint a painting from scratch and then burn it on stage. Is that art?
What if I carefully craft an adventure to evoke an emotional response in my players. Is that art?


I think there is intent, an intent to supply an experience to a very select audience.

That's not the same as letting some paint drip on a drop cloth.

Though, according to legend, one minis painter used the same papertowel to wipe of his brush forever, and then he sold the papertowel on e-bay. He had no original intent to create art. He simply thought it looked cool when he was doing painting, and put it on sale and somebody bought it as art.

 

[Umbran]

So I stand by my position that without the intent, even the most aesthetically pleasing RPG session probably does not rise to the level of art.

Yes, but I think the intent is commonly there.

If you're playing D&D strictly as a tactical wargame there's not a whole lot of difference between playing D&D and chess. Other than the abstract notion of elegant and artful strategies, I can pretty much agree with you.

But, once it involves playing a role in more than a tactical sense, then on some level you're acting, engaged in dramatic (and comedic) creation and expression. How does this not have some intent? This is beyond just playing a game like chess, working a scenario with rules to some success criteria. This is putting forth a depiction (however crude) of a fictional person for your own and other's consumption. How is this not art?

Mind you, that means that doing a bad Jimmy Durante impression for a joke at a weekend cookout with your friends is also art - I'm perfectly okay with that.

 

[howandwhy99]

I voted yes. For me D&D is a kind of puzzle art. To claim it cannot be approached from an aesthetic / evocative perspective is to deny that perspective. It can also be perceived as a kind of story, a sequence of stuff happening, plus it's primarily people doing it. I call it a puzzle as it is historically an analytic pattern recognition enterprise where players attempt to put together the pieces the person behind the screen is repeating. It's another perspective, one where memory and forethought are rewarded. I don't see why it cannot be all these things.

 

[nedjer]

evoke an emotional response in my players. Is that art?

you've got intent and emotion in there, so I was good with it until dinner arrived. There was like cauliflower on the plate. It was put there deliberately and got an emotional response - but didn't come across as art

It does, however, seem like art when you make toast stars to dip in the top of boiled eggs and kids wave them around. So, maybe art's something that takes you outside of yourself?