Is D&D Art?

[wrecan]

Not only are "Art" and "craft" not synonyms, "Craft" is not even a wholly owned subsidiary of "art." Something that is a "craft" can be "not art."

Not in the context of the paragraph we're discussing. The first sentence of the paragraph makes clear that the rest of the paragraph is simply categorizing different types of art.

While "craft" in the abstract need not be art (depending on one's definition of "art"), in that paragraph, it is.

The very first sentence of the wiki definition does

Here is the first sentence of the wiki:
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

It does not include an intention to create art. It includes an intention to affect the sense, emotions and intellect. If that is your definition of art, then D&D should be included in it, as it affects the senses, emotions, and intellect.

This may sound incredible...but not every book written has its contents available on the internet, at least, not for free.

Fine. But I don't believe your professors gave you a circular definition of art. I have more faith in professors than that.

while you won't find the book's content for free, you can find citations and discussions of it...and Richard Wollheim is considered to be an Intentionalist.

Yes, he is. And "intentionalism" does not use the circular definition of art that you did. Because Wollheim is amore rigorous academic and he would define art in a more rigorous way. (Which he does in his books.)

For instance, the Noel Carroll excerpt you quote properly characterizes the intentionalist theory as art requiring an intent to produce something that is "aesthetic". And "aesthetic" means "pleasing to the senses", which is probably where the wiki author devised that initial sentence that I quote above. (And under whose definition, D&D would apply.)

D&D IS inherently a game; is not inherently art.

The two concepts need not be mutually exclusive, and certainly aren't under an intentionalist definition, as improvisational theater games are both intentionalist art (as there is an intent to create an aesthetically pleasing performance) and game (as there are some conventions of play, no predetermined outcome, and an intention to be diverted).

 

[Janx]

how hard is it to fix DA's original statement so it doesn't use the bloody word art twice? Danny demonstrated with Murder.

Just so we can get off the circular reference problem.

art is something created with the intent to evoke an emotional response in the viewer

there. Done. Does that still match the intended meaning that Danny was trying to say? I hope so, as that was my intent.

I supposed somebody can find some other flaw with my revised statement.

Probably on these key words:
intent
evoke an emotional response

wrecan challenges "intent" as he's found a number of articles that do not use that word. Intent could mean a lot of things:
My intent for this painting was to make you feel the narwhal's plight
i Intend to make a piece of art
My intent was to make this both functional and beautiful

Evoking an emotional response is a common element of every definition I've read (all 2 of them). But I suppose somebody could quibble that there's more to it than that. Primarily so they can exclude certain things as qualifying as art (like hate speech, a poke in the eye).

Like the example of a movie, I've seen enough common elements that D&D has with a movie or a video game (which have been recognized as art), particularly RPGs/sandboxes because they play like a movie where the player is the protagonist and thus is in control of the scenes. How is D&D not like that?

Furthermore, if D&D is more like a movie that is art, and Recognized Art considers a urinal to be art, I think it's like trying to tell Rosa Parks she can't ride the bus. Busses carry people, Rosa's a people. Therefore Rosa can ride the bus.*

The bar is so low that a Urinal can be art, and that's so far away from what people would consider art, that something that actually has many common traits with a recognized artform should therefore merit the same respect.


*And yes, I was trying to evoke an emotional response. Not one of disrespect, but of not excludingg because of some arbitrary preference.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

how hard is it to fix DA's original statement so it doesn't use the bloody word art twice? Danny demonstrated with Murder.

Just so we can get off the circular reference problem.

The problem is that Danny keeps insisting on his circular definition (while simultaneously claiming not to be defining anything).

art is something created with the intent to evoke an emotional response in the viewer

That's a perfectly fine, non-circular definition.

It also includes D&D under its umbrella.

there. Done. Does that still match the intended meaning that Danny was trying to say? I hope so, as that was my intent.

I suspect it doesn't, but we'll see.

wrecan challenges "intent" as he's found a number of articles that do not use that word. Intent could mean a lot of things:

No, wrecan's fine with art being intentional. (Or, at least, he's fine with working with that definition.)

What he's not fine with is that "art is something intentionally made to be art."

Because that's a circular definition, and not useful for discussion.

 

[wrecan]

how hard is it to fix DA's original statement so it doesn't use the bloody word art twice?

I wouldn't have thought it hard at all, but DA refuses to do it. He insists that art is that which is created with the intent to be art, a completely unhelpful definition, and yet one which he still insists does not include any form of D&D he has witnessed to date (while acknowledging that some hypothetical future D&D session may aspire to such lofty heights).

art is something created with the intent to evoke an emotional response in the viewer

That doesn't appear to be a part of DA's definition, because if it were, D&D would qualify. If it were his definition, I'd be perfectly satisfied.

wrecan challenges "intent"

No, I don't. I specifically stated I have no problem with intent. In fact, my definition of "art", as set forth way back in post 79 includes an intent "to evoke an emotional response".

 

[Virel]

Depends on which edition you are playing.....joke

Depends on how you are playing.

If it's homebrew and the story develops from a blend of what the DM intended and what the players characters do, with surprises and twists for both DM and players it can be very close to art. A lot of times it's just a game but a few stories develop that are worthy of being called art.

If it's a module very unlikely in my experience.