RPGs as art form?

[John Kim]

I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that the Superman comics are works of art.  
...
Yes, each was a pop work created to attract as much money as possible and yes, Superman's powers and weaknesses changed over time to suit the reader's desires of the day.  But, each story was a complete work essentially told by a single (or small number) of authors.
...
So, on these points at least, we agree.  If we aren't going to talk in circles forever, though, we'll need to come to some mutual definition of what exactly constitues art and what doesn't.  If you don't accept Webster's definition, what definition would you propose?  Or, if you do accept Webster's definition, what is it about my interpretation that you disagree with?

Well, as usual, Webster's definition is fairly broad, but I would agree with it as a general definition.  As you referenced it, it defines art as "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination esp. in the production of aesthetic objects".  Well, let's take the case of D&D.  OK, writing it involved the conscious use of skill.  Check.  It also involved creative imagination (you might question the quality, but it definitely involves imagination).  Check.  OK, so is the result an aesthetic object?  Well, I would say so.  So by my interpretation D&D is art.  Maybe not good art, but art.  

What I disagreed with was the implication that if the primary motivation is to make money (say), then the effort and the result isn't art.  Since you agree that pop art like Superman is still art even though it was created to attract money, it looks like that this was miscommunication rather than disagreement.  

Your argument is that D&D is purely utilitarian, which I don't really get.  OK, so something like "Guns, Guns, Guns" (a BTRC supplement on designing guns for many RPG systems) one can say is purely utilitarian -- and I would agree.  You could make an argument for, say, CORPS or GURPS being purely utilitarian.  I would disagree, but one could make a decent case.  However, D&D has all sorts of descriptive elements even if you remove all the mechanics: describing gnomes, halflings, paladins, monks, spells, strange monsters, etc.  That seems to be clearly art to me.  Pop art, certainly.  Bad pop art, I would tend to agree but it could be argued.  But still art.

[John Kirk]

Your argument is that D&D is purely utilitarian, which I don't really get.

Ok.  You've convinced me about D&D being art.  It actually occurred to me after my last post that 1st edition D&D was produced by a small group of people and their original motivation was simply to create an entirely new game concept.  In effect, they created a whole new kind of aesthetic.  I personally think that Gary Gygax was a genius.  With the unfair advantage of decades of hindsight, we can question the elegance of his system, but we cannot doubt that the ideas he engendered were radically new and innovative.  In that regard, I guess I could even concede that D&D 1st edition should be considered "good" pop art.  It certainly had a huge impact.  You win this point.

OK, so something like "Guns, Guns, Guns" (a BTRC supplement on designing guns for many RPG systems) one can say is purely utilitarian -- and I would agree.

Excellent.  Since you concede that RPG materials that are really no more than technical manuals cannot be considered art, I think we are pretty much in agreement.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Excellent.  Since you concede that RPG materials that are really no more than technical manuals cannot be considered art, I think we are pretty much in agreement.

Until some chump comes along and says something about the art of writing a technical manual, but this will muddy the waters a bit, I think.

[C. Edwards]

Hey folks,

*promotes himself to Chump*

Okay, so are you saying that my textbook on mechanical drawing isn't art, or that an architect's blueprints are not art? Many people would disagree. Being mostly visual doesn't make them any less utilitarian and even though the architect's goal may be only to provide clear instructions for construction the results of his labor (the schematic/blueprint) can still be quite asthetically pleasing.

I think the trouble here is some confusion of the lines between 'art as intent' and 'art as beheld'. Basically, I can set about making something and call it art because I, the maker, consider it so. I can also walk into a junkyard and have the arrangement of old cars, broken dishwashers and rust strike me in an aesthetically powerful way, and consider the whole arrangement as art whether that was intended or not.

So, what are we talking about here?

-Chris

[John Kim]

Okay, so are you saying that my textbook on mechanical drawing isn't art, or that an architect's blueprints are not art? Many people would disagree. Being mostly visual doesn't make them any less utilitarian and even though the architect's goal may be only to provide clear instructions for construction the results of his labor (the schematic/blueprint) can still be quite asthetically pleasing.  

Hmm.  I'm not sure about the particular case, but I would tend to say that textbooks in general aren't art.  A textbook about how to interpret poetry may facilitate art, but it isn't itself artistic expression.  However, architect's blueprints are definitely art IMO.  

On the other hand, this is probably getting off-topic.  

I think the trouble here is some confusion of the lines between 'art as intent' and 'art as beheld'. Basically, I can set about making something and call it art because I, the maker, consider it so. I can also walk into a junkyard and have the arrangement of old cars, broken dishwashers and rust strike me in an aesthetically powerful way, and consider the whole arrangement as art whether that was intended or not.  

Well, as I said, I don't consider artist's motivation to be relevant.  However, by the traditional meaning of the word "art", it has to be a conscious creation.  A mountain might be beautiful and aesthetic, but it is not in itself art.  However, a photograph of the mountain could be art.

[C. Edwards]

Hey John,

However, architect's blueprints are definitely art IMO.

Well, as I said, I don't consider artist's motivation to be relevant.

A textbook about how to interpret poetry may facilitate art, but it isn't itself artistic expression.

I'm having trouble reconciling these statements. I'm not trying to pick your post apart here but this seems to go back to my previous post and what I said about the two types of art.

You say that the textbook isn't art because it isn't an artistic expression. That would infer a purposefully 'artistic' act on the part of the creator. You also say that you consider architect's blueprints to be art. I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of blueprints are created purely to facilitate construction of buildings. So, you seem to be using a moving variable to determine what is and is not art. Hence my confusion and the purpose behind my previous post.

Any clarification would be greatly welcomed.

-Chris

[M. J. Young]

I don't know; somehow this next seems relevant to me, although at this moment I can't quite think why or how.

When my mother was a girl (yes, there were people then) she use to go to the movies on Saturday, pay a dime to get in, watch several hours of entertainment, and often get a cheap gift as a thank you for coming. She kept some of these gifts. They were nothing; she kept them in a cabinet over the sink in the kitchen, and sometimes we used them in the seventies, maybe forty years after they were made.

One day she went with a friend to a sale, and she saw some of these things on display, with the tag "250". She thought it might be nice to fill out the set, by buying a couple of these, if they were only two dollars and fifty cents; but since she couldn't imagine that, she wondered if that actually meant they were twenty-five dollars. So she asked someone how to read the tag.

These little trinkets which were given away, so many probably thrown away, so many broken, are called depression glass. That tag meant that little wine glasses like the ones my mother let us use at parties because she got them free for going to a ten cent movie were selling for two hundred fifty dollars each.

We never drank from them again.

I think they must be art. I don't think anyone thought of them as such at the time. They were made to be cheap throwaways that could be given free to customers as an incentive; they were mostly discarded. They're pretty, certainly, but no one felt they were getting some great treasure then. Maybe there was some glassmaker somewhere who spent time trying to make them nice, although ultimately these were mass produced (there are a limited number of patterns which were distributed). Probably there were a lot of company people deciding what was to be made and how it was to be made.

John's right. Art is very much our reaction to something, not the thing itself. It may or may not have utility. It may or may not have been intended to be beautiful. It is that which appeals to an aesthetic sense, which can be found in many things.

Of course, this all pushes us to another question--is there anything that isn't art? Have we thus made the category so encompassing that it ceases to mean anything? Fancy Feast seems to be artistic cat food--it's designed to appeal to the aesthetic sense of the owners, if not the cats. Or is that not really the same thing?


--M. J. Young

[C. Edwards]

Of course, this all pushes us to another question--is there anything that isn't art? Have we thus made the category so encompassing that it ceases to mean anything? Fancy Feast seems to be artistic cat food--it's designed to appeal to the aesthetic sense of the owners, if not the cats. Or is that not really the same thing?

That the crux, yes. It's not that we've made the category so encompassing I think, only that if you pick an item or act, be it mountain, ballet, junkyard, opera, photo, or depression glass, there will be somebody that considers it to be art. That probably even applies to the cat food. Anything can conceivably be considered art.

I don't think most designers or consumers think of rpgs as art. They hope, and rightly so, for aesthetically pleasing design, with emphasis on design. The same with automobiles and buildings. I guess you could say that the perception and method of creation of rpgs has more in common with industrial design than artistic expression. More and more I'm thinking that is exactly how it should be.

Not that an rpg can't be considered 'art', or be the output of artistic expression, only that those issues take a back seat (maybe even the trunk) to the issue of how well it works in play. Questions of 'art' can be left up to the beholder.

-Chris

[John Kim]

You say that the textbook isn't art because it isn't an artistic expression. That would infer a purposefully 'artistic' act on the part of the creator. You also say that you consider architect's blueprints to be art. I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of blueprints are created purely to facilitate construction of buildings. So, you seem to be using a moving variable to determine what is and is not art.  

I don't think I am -- you have interpretted that "artistic expression" depends on the intent of the creator, but that isn't how I view it.  One can express something without intending to.  What matters is that creative, imaginative meaning is conveyed from the artist to the viewer.  

A "craft" generally means something that takes skill, but has little room for creative imagination.  For example, making a traditional tuxedo is a craft.  There is a specific final appearance which is being tried for.  Something can also be a craft if there is a function which highly constrains what it can be.  Architecture generally is considered art because there is a lot of leeway in terms of aesthetics.  The function still leaves a lot of room for creative imagination.  In contrast, say, designing a battleship is probably not art.  Any choice of color, shape, or layout is likely to have impact on how well it will function in battle.  

Obviously this isn't a hard-and-fast definition, and there are broad grey areas.  My feeling was that textbooks are mostly constrained by the function of conveying their educational material, to a greater degree than architecture's function of keeping the roof up.  I guess I feel that textbooks do not generally convey creative imagination.  A textbook author can be innovative and skilled in how he presents his material, but there is little creative imagination which is conveyed to the reader.  

(Note that I am talking specifically about textbooks, not about non-fiction in general.  There is definitely art in more freeform non-fiction books.)

[John Kim]

I don't think most designers or consumers think of rpgs as art. They hope, and rightly so, for aesthetically pleasing design, with emphasis on design. The same with automobiles and buildings. I guess you could say that the perception and method of creation of rpgs has more in common with industrial design than artistic expression. More and more I'm thinking that is exactly how it should be.

Not that an rpg can't be considered 'art', or be the output of artistic expression, only that those issues take a back seat (maybe even the trunk) to the issue of how well it works in play.  

But how well it works in play is art.  Working in play isn't a measurable, non-creative thing like newtons of thrust or weight bearing.  You could say the same thing above about a playwright.  i.e. The art of the script must take a back seat to how well the play works in performance -- which of course makes no sense.  Yes, the playwright is constrained: he needs to allow that the performance is different than the writing, and the director and actor will add dimensions to the play that aren't in the script.  But the artistic creativity in the script directly translates to a good performance.  

By the same token, the game shows through in play.  Consider, say, Harn.  On the one hand, it needs to be presented in a format usable for an RPG.  However, it is also expressing a creative vision which is taken up in play.  The artistic map, say, isn't a distraction from play; it is a part of the game which adds to play.

[C. Edwards]

Thanks John,

I don't think I am -- you have interpretted that "artistic expression" depends on the intent of the creator, but that isn't how I view it. One can express something without intending to. What matters is that creative, imaginative meaning is conveyed from the artist to the viewer. <snip>

That post clears up my confusion over your earlier posts. :)

But the artistic creativity in the script directly translates to a good performance.

Does it translate directly into good performance or into the overall experience of the performance. I think solid design promotes the former while artistic creativity enhances the latter. (It strikes me that this is similar to automobiles where solid design translates to good performance with the aesthetic enhancements adding to the overall driving experience.)

I think that's what you're saying here:

By the same token, the game shows through in play. Consider, say, Harn. On the one hand, it needs to be presented in a format usable for an RPG. However, it is also expressing a creative vision which is taken up in play. The artistic map, say, isn't a distraction from play; it is a part of the game which adds to play.

But I'm not sure.

-Chris

[John Kim]

But the artistic creativity in the script directly translates to a good performance.

Does it translate directly into good performance or into the overall experience of the performance. I think solid design promotes the former while artistic creativity enhances the latter. (It strikes me that this is similar to automobiles where solid design translates to good performance with the aesthetic enhancements adding to the overall driving experience.)

The automobile analogy doesn't work well for me, because automobiles have fairly objectively-measured performance for things like acceleration, top speed, turning radius, or even smoothness of ride.  This is contrasted with the cosmetic details like color, which are a distinct set of qualities.  I'm not sure what the equivalent in RPGs is.  I guess you could measure search and handling time (i.e. how long it takes to resolve an attack roll, say), but even that is a matter of taste.  For example, in my experience, many Champions players actively enjoy the relatively long time to roll damage.  

To me, the analogy of a play works better.  In a play, everything is cosmetic (or conversely, everything is meaningful).  I don't think it makes sense to talk about a script which "performs well" but is unaesthetic and has a poor experience.  A script still needs to be performed, and a good scriptwriter will design it to perform well -- but in the end the only measure is the experience.  

Similarly, I don't see any objective performance measures in RPGs.  It should be designed to be played, but in the end the only measure is the experience of play.

[Hunter Logan]

I think a music analogy might be pretty close to the mark for considering rpgs as art. I identify three different levels for consideration:

-Design of the game, which is a bit like composing music and also like painting. The design can be evaluated formally in terms of mechanics and play flow.

-Presentation of the game, which is like the book containing the composition. This is steeped in design and craft, although the presentation (both words and visual arrangement) may qualify as art.

-Play of the game, which is like actually playing the music. The musicians have seen the composition. How they play the notes can make the composition sound better or worse.

One point for consideration: The definition for art can include any man-made object. A bunch of tacks thrown on a table can be considered art. It's fine art that has formal considerations open to objective evaluation. Art doesn't have to communicate in order to be art. Fine art may not have a message. Its formal arrangement may be the whole point, and that arrangement may or may not make sense to an outsider. In this case, an outsider is any person not trained to create such art, or at least to understand the formal considerations.

Let me clarify: A painter may make an abstract painting. He selects specific colors, works out a composition, and executes the work in the manner he sees fit based on formal considerations. A person without knowledge of color theory, graphic design, painting technique, etc. looks at this work and thinks, "What a piece of crap! It's not a painting of anything. I don't get it." That's negative. A more appreciative sort might think, "What nice colors and shapes. I like it. Pity it costs so much. It would really brighten up my living room." Yet, if that painter has done his work properly, a knowing person looks and sees wonderful fine art because of the formal considerations used in creating the work.

I think this might impacts on unplayable games and popular misconceptions about art.

-Unplayable games: From a formal perspective, the design of the game could be excellent. Unfortunately, people can't play the thing because they simply don't understand it. This is not a language problem; they just can't get their brains around the play flow or mechanics. It's music that can't be played. Eventually, someone may be able to play it. Then, something really amazing might happen.

-Popular misconceptions: Some say that good art has to have a message or convey the artist's feelings. This is simply not true. The message or the artist's feelings about the work have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the work. Work quality is evaluated against objective standards based on formal considerations. Those considerations vary with the art form. Yet, nothing can derail the inevitable truth of this one saying: "I may not know good art from bad art, but I know what I like."

[Mike Holmes]

Hey Hunter, good to hear from you. Long time.

I like your analogy and clarifications. Especially the one about Fine Art. If we're going to discuss this in any depth it seems to me that we have to use the definitions of the people in the field. Otherwise we risk coming to conclusions that will only be conflicting, and therefore, confusing with anyone who is in the field.

Thanks for the reality check.

Mike

[Hunter Logan]

Hey Mike,

Good to be here. Thanks for your kind words.