Is D&D Art?

[SnowleopardVK]

Yes and no in answer to "when you play D&D are you creating art?".

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.

As for whether D&D itself is art. I say yes. It's the artistic work of its creators. Just because it's also a game and can be played doesn't disqualify it I think.

 

[Gryph]

I voted no, but like Danny it's a soft no.

First, their is a whole realm of life experiences that meet Mr. Ebert's definition that are not art. My mother's death from cancer comes to mind.

Second, I don't believe that a work that leaves no trace of itself behind can truly be considered art. Many recordings (maybe all) of singers are works of art, but many performances by singers are not. (Yes I know I'll take some heat for this one)

Lastly, I would certainly agree that a recording, documentary or transcript created from one or more D&D sessions could be art. I believe it would require significant creative contribution to the work to qualify.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My definition of art is much more narrow than the usual ones in the modern mind. Basically, I see "art" as "craft done extremely well (implying both technique and discernment)." I don't expect many people to agree with me on this.

By that defnition, I'd say that RPGs can aspire to art, but they will rarely make it--the same as all the furniture makers in the world will occasionally produce a piece of art, but that isn't their primary function or goal.

 

[Umbran]

First, their is a whole realm of life experiences that meet Mr. Ebert's definition that are not art. My mother's death from cancer comes to mind.

Ouch. Okay, that's an extreme example. You brought it up, though, so I'll hope you will accept a basic comment - your mother's death was not the result of use of skill or creative imagination.

D&D play is the result of skill and creative imagination, so there's some apples and oranges there.

Second, I don't believe that a work that leaves no trace of itself behind can truly be considered art. Many recordings (maybe all) of singers are works of art, but many performances by singers are not. (Yes I know I'll take some heat for this one)

If a tree falls in a forest, not only does someone have to be there to hear it, but they need to have a tape recorder? No, sorry, I don't accept that one. For most of human history, the art of story telling was practiced by people who didn't know how to write - they were still producing art, as far as I am concerned.

But, if you wish to look at it another way - the game, the story, the unrecorded song all leave traces in memory.

 

[Mallus]

Second, I don't believe that a work that leaves no trace of itself behind can truly be considered art.

What about performance art? Or environmental art like Christo and Jeanne-Claude's?

Setting aside any discussion of quality, both of those are widely accepted as art forms.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

 

[Croesus]

First off, this thread is identical to the "is D&D about combat" thread, in that it depends on how one defines something - in the previous thread, "about" was the key element; in this one, how one defines "art" is key. Our answers say more about how we define art than they do about D&D.

My definition of art is both vague and fairly narrow. Like pornography, I can't define it exactly, but I know it when I see it. For me, a Rembrandt is art, a white canvas with a black dot in the middle is not. A play with a plot, characters, and sets is art. People walking around a mall with different colored backpacks (performance "art") is not.

So for me, D&D is not art. IMNSHD (in my not so humble definition)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Second, I don't believe that a work that leaves no trace of itself behind can truly be considered art. Many recordings (maybe all) of singers are works of art, but many performances by singers are not. (Yes I know I'll take some heat for this one)

Lastly, I would certainly agree that a recording, documentary or transcript created from one or more D&D sessions could be art. I believe it would require significant creative contribution to the work to qualify.

I don't think D&D leaves no trace of itself. If that's the case, what is ENWorld for? Even groups that don't transcribe or record sessions experience and remember them.

I have to disagree with the premise that art has to leave a tangible product. Many musicians would say that their live performances in front of audiences are better methods of creative expression than processed recordings in a studio. Most performance art (music, drama, comedy, storytelling) throughout history hasn't left a trace behind, and these art forms predate art that produces physical products.


It seems you are taking a lot of heat for this one as I've been ninja'd twice. It's nothing personal, just an intellectual disagreement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

First off, this thread is identical to the "is D&D about combat" thread, in that it depends on how one defines something - in the previous thread, "about" was the key element; in this one, how one defines "art" is key.

True.

Our answers say more about how we define art than they do about D&D.

I think they say a lot about both.

My definition of art is both vague and fairly narrow. Like pornography, I can't define it exactly, but I know it when I see it. For me, a Rembrandt is art, a white canvas with a black dot in the middle is not. A play with a plot, characters, and sets is art. People walking around a mall with different colored backpacks (performance "art") is not.

So for me, D&D is not art. IMNSHD (in my not so humble definition)

I see your point. When I looked for dictionary definitions of art, I found them somewhat unsatisfying and hard to interpret. My field of interest (pain medicine) is equally problematic because pain is such an elusive concept. Thus, I totally buy the "I know it when I see it" mentality.

There's a lot of pretentious people out there claiming to make art, and I'm not really an artsy person, so on some level I agree with the reasoning here, if not the final conclusion.

 

[Jack7]

To me I'd say much depends upon the nature and outcome of the game and how it affects both players and DM and what future use will be made of what was created. Sometimes to me, it is not art at all, just entertainment. Sometimes it is a sort of performance art. And on rare occasions I would say it is Art (as in, Big Art). More like the Art of a Play (which is a unique, one-time event even if the script is recorded, it will never be played exactly the same again) than Literary or Graphic Art, but if later other things arise from it such as recorded Literary Art, then it is Art more than once.

But to me Art is not simply the Product, but the Result and the Effect. And sometimes Art is recorded so that it is fixed, such as the Painting of the Last Supper, and sometimes it is unique, such as a Play by Aristophanes that has been lost to time - and just because it was lost doesn't mean it never was Art - and sometimes it lies somewhere in-between.)

For instance Craft can be both a Noun and a Verb. The craft of ballet, although I think little of ballet, is nevertheless Art if well executed. The Act was the Art. Or perhaps I should use Opera because I like some Operas. The performance is the Art. The action is the Art. Not every opera is art, but really good ones are. So being Opera does not make it Art, being good Opera does. So Crafts (verb form) can be Art as much as Paintings.

But D&D is also a game. This does not exclude it from being Art but it doesn't guarantee it will be Art either. A Musical composition is music, this doesn't exclude it from being Art, nor does it guarantee it will be Art either. They are not mutually exclusive categories, but then again they are not necessarily equivalent.

So being a Game does not exclude it from being Art, anymore than being a Man excludes one from also being an Architect. But then simply being a man does not guarantee the man will also be an architect.

That being the case then I'd say D&D at any time has the potential to be an Art. Depending on how it plays out and the effect it has and how well it is crafted. Not a guaranteed Art, as Mall pointed out, but for the same reason it cannot be excluded as an Art either.

If it is Art then it is because of Effect and Outcome as well as Product.

Sometimes music is little more than noise, sometimes it is High Art.

Sometimes a game is just a game, and sometimes a Game is High Art.

If you insist that every time a game be played it must be Art, then it is in my opinion very similar to saying that every time a film is made it must be Art. But we all know that is not true.

Sometimes the film is Art and sometimes it's a film like Dungeons and Dragons (I couldn't resist it folks).

But more seriously I'd vote yes with caveats.

D&D, or any really good game, is not necessarily an Art, but then again nothing is guaranteed Art just because it is. It becomes Art because of what it becomes. If done right.