I have been thinking recently about RPG design, and something struck me about the nature of the process itself. It consists of human beings devising concepts, which they put into a form for other human beings to see and look upon. So by such logic, should not RPGs be considered an art such as literature is an art of opera is an art? I do not mean that it is a form of either of these, an RPG is a qualitatively different thing than either. But I believe an RPG can be viewed as the product of a distinct form of artistic expression, one that is very young but has already developed distinct genres, traditions and notable individuals within the field.

Emote,

Welcome to the Forge. I know you've probably been welcomed before, but not by me, and I hope I'm getting it in before redundancy sets in.

The question of RPGs as an art-form has been raised on numerous occasions, quite recently in some ongoing threads about aesthetics. I would also point you to this very long post which I wrote quite recently, as well as this post from some time ago. I feel sure that others will soon point you to older threads and ones that have simply slipped my mind.

There is no question in my mind, at least, that RPGs have no intrinsic limitations from achieving major artistic goals. There are a number of historical reasons why they have not as yet been accepted as such, but I think there are two especial reasons arising from the medium as it stands.

1. The art-object has no audience. Insofar as it can be said to have an audience, that audience is sufficiently constricted (only experienced RPG players) that outside criticism cannot see the value or achievement. (See the Confused Agendas post.)

2. Very few RPGs have taken this goal seriously, or attempted to do more than entertain and sell some copy.

I do not think it is necessary for good RPGs to strive at major artistic achievement; any that do have a rather long row to hoe, given the youth and lack of recognition of the form in general. But the danger of saying that RPGs can be artistic is that there is a tendency to see the better games as significant works of art as they stand. If that is the case, the form is so constrained that it can never be accepted by the larger public; I doubt this. But while Sorcerer is one of the very best games I for one have ever seen, I would not make a serious pitch for putting Ron Edwards side by side with Michelangelo or Mozart, and I very much doubt that Ron would either.

I don't mean to be a nay-sayer -- just a note of caution.

clehrich wrote: I think there are two especial reasons arising from the medium as it stands.

1. The art-object has no audience. Insofar as it can be said to have an audience, that audience is sufficiently constricted (only experienced RPG players) that outside criticism cannot see the value or achievement. (See the Confused Agendas post.)

2. Very few RPGs have taken this goal seriously, or attempted to do more than entertain and sell some copy.

John Kim wrote: In general, my (amateur) impression is that there has been growing recognition among many theorists that even if someone entertains, makes money, and doesn't smoke clove cigarettes, their work can still be recognized as art.

clehrich wrote: Absolutely; I certainly don't want to go on record as requiring poverty and a beret. I do think, however, that the presence of early art films did a great deal to make it possible for the medium to be taken seriously. Once that had happened, it was only natural that the gifts of Hitchcock and Ford would be recognized in due time. My point is merely that we don't have (1) the audience, and (2) the hard-core artsy stuff to make it work just yet. I see lots of talk about finding #1, in threads about popularity, indies, and so forth. As yet I see relatively few about #2.

Emote, I'm going to agree with you that RPGs can be, and perhaps are, art forms; but I'm going to say that your reasons aren't adequate.

Emote Control wrote: It consists of human beings devising concepts, which they put into a form for other human beings to see and look upon. So by such logic, should not RPGs be considered an art such as literature is an art of opera is an art?

In retrospect, my initial post was badly worded. I don't know what art *is*, but I do know it isn't limited to things that I like. The art form of poetry certainly includes "Do not go gently into that good night." But it also includes the countless tens of thousands of verses at poetry.com, three of which are mine. *And* it includes various limericks that begin with "There was an old man from Nantucket". To me painting is not just oil on canvas, it includes fingerpaints and spray-paint pictures as well. And any true definition of "literature" must include David Weber as much as it includes William Faulkner. I class art by what it is, not by whether I like it or not.

And as for the issue of commercialism, countless primitive tribes have no money and no critics either, but they still have rich folk art traditions. And the Egyptian heiroglyphics were painted inside tombs which were then sealed off, supposedly forevermore. And Shakespeare was a *professional* playright, that was how he literally made his living.

To me, there is no doubt that RPGs are an art form. But I also include interactive computer games and website design as art, because they are created. But I also think that computer games are a part of literature rather than a truly separate art form. Website design is part of architecture. But the more I think on it, the more convinced I become that RPGs are form of creative expression which is qualitatively distinct from anything else I know. And I wanted to know if others had felt the same way.

Just to be contrary...

While RPGs can be art, I tend to think of them as utilitarian products. An RPG is an object that is meant to be used for something like a hammer or a computer - not like a painting or poem.

This isn't to say you can't merge art and functionality. You could have a gold-plated hammer with whimsical engravings. You could have colorful gumdrop-shaped computers (oh, wait, we do!).

But in my mind RPGs still have to be held up to a standard as a tool. How well do they assist people in learning to play? Are they conducive to an enjoyable evening? Do they solve a problem other games have suffered from? Only after a game satisfies those elements do I start looking at issues like artwork, layout, originality, message and other elements I'd look for in a painting or movie.

Now, admittedly, which of those elements fall under "utility" and which fall under "art" depend on our ultimate definitions of the two. And, as with various standards for movies, it's likely that future generations will see things differently than we do now.

I disagree that things such as assisting new players and being enjoyable are utility rather than art. In fact, they are perhaps the most important artistic aspect of an RPG. What makes RPGs a whole new art form is that they actively work to assist the consumer to create a new world within the author's world, and indeed that is the very assumption. Originality and message are also very important, I'd put artwork and layout further down because those are more easily mutable. But the system is to the RPG what the language is to literature.

Emote Control wrote: I disagree that things such as assisting new players and being enjoyable are utility rather than art. In fact, they are perhaps the most important artistic aspect of an RPG. What makes RPGs a whole new art form is that they actively work to assist the consumer to create a new world within the author's world, and indeed that is the very assumption. Originality and message are also very important, I'd put artwork and layout further down because those are more easily mutable. But the system is to the RPG what the language is to literature.

Uh, we're talking text vs. play here, I think. That is, text is tool, play is art. The RPG is the brush with which we paint our sessions of play. Make sense?

I think that another analogy similar to the film one is that of pulp fiction (no, not the movie). Sci-fi was, in it's early forms, usually less art, and more cheap entertainment. I think that Robin Laws is the Assimov of Game design. His works are still sorta trashy, but they've got elements of art in them as well. Who will play the part of Arthur C. Clarke and write the equivalent of Childhood's End? I'm waiting.

(Ron's sort of a Heinlein, incorporating philosophy in a powerfully pop way; and I guess to really extend the analogy that would make Gygax = H.G. Wells. )

Mike

BTW, this would explain the popularity of HP Lovecraft amongst gamers, no? Maybe we should keep our "pulp" sensibilities.

Where does this put interactive art? This is basically art that doesn’t deliver unless the viewer physically interacts with it. Ok, short story. I went to this ‘underground’ erotic art show, many of the pieces were fairly standard as far as artistic mediums go but there were a few pieces I remember very well. Two of these were interactive pieces.

One was a ‘painting’ of a female model that was 3-dimensional, curves and what not were raised above the surface of the rest of the painting. Viewers were supposed to use the lotion that sat on a pedestal in front of the piece and rub it onto the painting.

The second item was encased in what used to be a stand-up video game cabinet. There was a sort of curtain partition hanging in front that shielded the screen and made it kind of like a photo booth. It was very dark inside. This particular piece of art didn’t function unless you played with the joysticks. When you gave the sticks a twist or yank crazy images involving cows and other stuff that’s been blocked from my memory twisted and flashed on the screen. Doing different things with the joysticks would cause the images to appear in different ways.

Now, if that’s not analogous to RPGs I don’t know what is. The item itself can be art, from layout, physical materials, actual illustrations, whatever. But when you interact with an RPG, when you play it, you reach a whole different level. To some degree, what made the RPG art before the interaction carries over once play begins.

-Chris

Interactive pieces are part of their original genre, though distinct from "static" forms. That's why computer games are literature -- they are interactive reading, with illustrations. But I can't fit RPGs into a category like that. The system and design of an RPG is experienced in a different way than anything else, as the audience actively becoming the authors, and so to me they are unique.

I don't know what committee got together and decided what went in which box, but I disagree with their categorizations. So, that's me saying "I agree to disagree". :)

-Chris

I'm not claiming anyone agrees with me on this, but I've given the matter plenty of thought and these are the options that struck me as best. All art is fundamentally interactive -- the viewer looks at it, and sees it in a way, then looks at it again, and sees it in a different way. That the art changes in response to those perceptions is, to me, an elaboration on the initial form.

Having read Justin's objections, I'm now wondering whether RPGs are in some way akin to Karaoke. The tracks themselves are artistic; they're often more artistic than the vocals which are added by the user--but the user by adding his voice to that which is on the tracks creates a new work of art.

So with RPGs, the combination of system and setting is an artistic creation which itself serves as the backdrop for another artistic creation which incorporates it; the backdrop is art in itself, but art intended to facilitate art.

It occurs to me that there are other examples in other media. Set designers, scene painters, and costumers all are artists creating props and sets for movies or plays, all of which are works of art in themselves but which only function artistically in the context of the greater product. Similarly, radio sound effects are works of art of a sort, but make little sense without the drama within which they function. Theme music for a movie frequently doesn't work without the accompanying images, but is not the less art for that.

Thus it appears that artistic elements can be works of art in themselves and still be utilitarian/tools whose function is to facilitate other works of art. I think RPGs fall into that category.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: So with RPGs, the combination of system and setting is an artistic creation which itself serves as the backdrop for another artistic creation which incorporates it; the backdrop is art in itself, but art intended to facilitate art.

Hi there,

Your Sim-preferences are showing a bit there, M.J., if I may be allowed a touch of personal labelling.

Narrativist play is predicated on disavowing karaoke as the primary model for story-producing play. I have two extensive chapters in Sorcerer & Sword about it, using karaoke specifically as the "thing to avoid."

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

I think one of us is misunderstanding M. J.'s analogy. I'm seeing it, in the context of RPG's as interactive art, as the karaoke track being the system (particularly Creative Agenda) that is the framework for play. In this case play being the actual vocals. The lyrics on the screen are just the theme. How an individual addresses that theme becomes clear in their actual singing.

Maybe I'm just confused, but that doesn't seem any different to me than addressing Sorcerer's "What price are you willing to pay for power?". That question would basically be the lyrics that are expressed in a particular way by each individual. Karaoke my be more subtle in this way, especially with mediocre vocalists, but I see them as one and the same in M. J.'s example.

-Chris

Hi Chris,

That's ... interesting, but it strikes me as awfully odd to limit in-play input to the extent that karaoke limits the creation of music. I guess I think about the whole band and every possible noise involved as the music, not just the vocal pitches and tremolos.

So to me, the role-playing rules text is a set of instruments, maybe a mixing board, and perhaps extending the analogy even to the bag of snacks set aside for breaks. Without play, it all just sits there. Nothing there is the music, except when in use.

Best,
Ron

On the other hand an instrument's artistic power is solely dependent on the knowledge and skills of the musician. An RPG is a whole creation of itself, and guides its own usage. I don't hold with "totally dependent on players" for something being fun -- it's undoubtedly a big deal, but the game itself is not carved bone but living flesh.

Hi there Emote,

That's a bit purple, I think. If there's no musician, there is no music. A book on the shelf ain't role-playing; role-playing is an activity. When you start talking about a game in the absence of play as "living flesh," I can only shrug. Those words literally mean nothing to me in terms of supporting a point.

I also think you won't get too far with a dichotomous approach to discussion - no one is saying "totally dependent on players," especially not at the Forge. The core essay here is called System Does Matter, after all. To stick with my analogy, it'd be awful hard (not impossible, but hard) to play rock and roll with a penny whistle and tympani.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: That's ... interesting, but it strikes me as awfully odd to limit in-play input to the extent that karaoke limits the creation of music.

I guess I think about the whole band and every possible noise involved as the music, not just the vocal pitches and tremolos.

My analogy wasn't supposed to be quite so controversial. I'll accept the label of strongly simulationist, but I think Chris is getting it and Ron is pushing it too far.

The Karaoke analogy certainly could be pushed too far quite easily, if we're thinking of it as tracks that exist and will play through as recorded, over which the the singer reads the script. That's not at all what I was meaning. I was, rather, looking for a concept in which one artistic expression was intended to support another, and was in some sense incomplete without the other; and in which the one expression occurred prior to and independent of the other. Most of the other musical examples demand concurrent expression--the orchestra supporting the ballet, the accompanist supporting the soloist. In those cases, we've got the creation of the supportive element and the primary element concurrently. I was looking for something in which the supportive element was created first, and was in some sense a complete work, to which the primary element would be added later. Karaoke is this model; with less baggage, perhaps, there are musical performers today who buy prerecorded tracks (often the background recordings from albums) so that they can perform the songs in public by singing over the tapes. As a musician, I hate this kind of thing--it's not spontaneous, it's not alive, it strikes me as fraudulent. I remember back in maybe '72 there was a three-member vocal band who did this. They hired studio musicians to record tracks which they had arranged, set up superb playback equipment, and sang over the tapes in concerts throughout the New York metro area--and even in high school I thought that was bogus. But that's not the point. The point is that you can have a recording that is artistic in itself, but is made to support the artistry of someone else.

I think that a game is exactly that. The combination of system and setting is a work of art, and in one sense is a finished work of art. At the same time, it is most commonly appreciated when it is used as the support for the creation of another work of art, the live performance of a created game experience. The fact that the game experience is a work of art does not invalidate the claim that the game on which it is built is also a work of art.

The Karaoke example does not mean that the tracks are recorded in the same sense in games. It only means that there is one work of art which contains another work of art, that the other work of art pre-existed the one now being created, and was created to serve that function. I can imagine other examples--a painting of a room in which there is a painting, the painting within the room faithfully reproduced in the painting of the room, but that doesn't capture it, because the original painting was created to stand alone, not to be part of this. The settings and props created for movies or plays, which may be very artistic but exist to support the creation of the other. Perhaps the script of a play is a work of art, but the presentation of the play is another work of art, and the script, as wonderful as it is, exists to make the play possible. All of these examples are limited, because there doesn't seem to be anything quite like role playing games in this regard: a medium in which one work of art provides the structure and support for another, without dictating more than the broadest outlines of the form that other will take.

But perhaps this might get the idea across: is Glorantha a work of art? Given that it was created solely to be used in the creation of stories or games, does it become less so?

--M. J. Young

M.J. Young wrote: I think that a game is exactly that. The combination of system and setting is a work of art, and in one sense is a finished work of art. At the same time, it is most commonly appreciated when it is used as the support for the creation of another work of art, the live performance of a created game experience. The fact that the game experience is a work of art does not invalidate the claim that the game on which it is built is also a work of art.

Hi there,

Good discussion! I'm thinking that I should clarify my overall take on it - that M.J. has nailed the issue to the extent that I can't think of much or anything to add. My only contention was the karaoke analogy, but taking it as a "soft" analogy, as Chris and M.J. have clarified, its point works for me.

Best,
Ron

M.J. wrote: I think that a game is exactly that. The combination of system and setting is a work of art, and in one sense is a finished work of art. At the same time, it is most commonly appreciated when it is used as the support for the creation of another work of art, the live performance of a created game experience. The fact that the game experience is a work of art does not invalidate the claim that the game on which it is built is also a work of art.

Chris wrote: Anyway, the point is that I see actual play as the make-or-break issue in evaluating an RPG aesthetically.

Joe,

As I noted in the post you're responding to,

Doesn't this mean that you could have a system/setting/etc. that is unplayable but still a work of art? I suppose it's theoretically possible, as a radical phenomenon....

I'm glad Chris Lerich has focused on modern music to illustrate, because I agree that it illustrates well. I think, though, that it might go against his point to some degree.

Let's accept that the point of a role playing game is that it be designed to be played. Much like music in this regard, or like plays, there is an underlying created artwork with a functional purpose of supporting another artistic creation or expression.

As an aside, it occurs to me to mention architecture in this regard--functional art. Architecture falls short in that the function of most of it is not related to supporting another artistic expression; but it will be useful I think in this discussion.


Charles Ives wrote a number of symphonies which were never heard in his lifetime. Some of them still have not been publicly performed--the strictures on bringing three concert bands into one auditorium, and having them play in different keys and tempos yet come out together are too great to overcome. Yet in our computer age, we are finding ways to reproduce the sounds which were in his mind, which he placed on paper. Those works did not become works of art when we learned to produce them; they always were, even though they were then unplayable.

This is not the only example, certainly. I heard a violinist perform a work by (if I recall correctly) Beethoven years ago which, in introducing it, she explained he wrote for a friend of his, one of the leading violinists of the age--who declared that it could not be played on a violin, and refused to do it. Techniques advance, we learn to do things we once thought impossible, and we expand our understanding of the possible as we grow.

It is possible for a great work of art to be unplayable by us in our current state, and yet still be great, awaiting someone who can play it. It could similarly be the case that a role playing game is not playable by us, but is still a great game once players advance to the point at which they can grasp it.

On the other hand, no one said that all works of art are necessarily good.

I really object to what-his-name, the science fiction author who wrote the Star Trek episode City on the Edge of Forever, and his arrogant attitude about how science fiction always has literary merit, because if it doesn't have literary merit it's not science fiction but sci-fi. That's nonsense. There is good and bad in every genre, in ever medium, in every artform. That can't be escaped. There are buildings that don't serve their functions well at all. And certainly there are (or at least are bound to be) role playing games which are so poor as artistic expressions that they fail to fulfill their function because they are not playable.

Playability may be one measure of quality; it may also be a measure of the skill of the artists. I don't think you can say it ceases to be art merely because it's bad, or merely because it is beyond our current ability. Most good artistic role playing games are going to be playable, and it is certainly one factor to consider in evaluating a game.

--M. J. Young

I entirely agree with you, M.J., but I don't think these examples go against my point. You put what you said so clearly that I must have put mine not so clearly. Let me restate very simply.

I think that music is basically about sound, about tone and rhythm and such, and that thus it's basically about performance in a sound medium. There are exceptions. There are those who can read a score without hearing it and still assess it. There are works that challenge our sense of sound. But still, music does not include the Mona Lisa.

I think that RPGs are basically about play. There can certainly be exceptions, although this is all totally hypothetical unless some nut wants to take up my gedanken experiment or something like.

But basically the work of art in RPGs resides in the medium of play, just as the work of art in music resides in the medium of sound. Everything, but everything, orients itself to this medium. The nifty thing about RPGs is the oddity of the medium, which is not the same as social group: it's everything to the right of Social Contract in Ron's Big Model. That's a weird medium.

Does this make sense to you?

Oh, yeah.

I can read a score pretty well, and I love Ives, but I have a lot of problems with any music that you can't perform.

My point, though, is while whether or not you can perform a piece of music is an important factor, it does not in and of itself determine whether it's art.

I do a bit of keyboard work, but I'm absolutely horrible at it. (As an aside, I'm looking for a music program which will let me use my midi keyboard to set parameters for the sound, but then will play what I write--I can write far more precisely than I can play keyboards, and every program I've seen is big on the "you don't even know how to read or write music" bit, when to my mind the key to doing music is the reading and writing. If anyone has a lead on such a program, please let me know.)

There are more well-written musical works for piano and organ that I cannot play than that I can play. I've written some myself. Setting mine aside, I'm sure that Beethoven's and Gershwin's piano works are still great works of art even if I can't perform them--I've heard them performed by others.

I am equally sure that a musical composition could be a great work of art even if no one can perform it today. It might be that it is never performed, or that it is not performed for centuries. It does not cease to be art because it is not performed. There are collections of written music which were never performed because there was no opportunity during the composer's life and after his death they were forgotten (many of these are being performed and recorded now).

On the other hand, it's also perfectly possible that something can't be performed because it's artistically very bad.

Whether or not we are able to play a role playing game is an important factor, but it does not in itself validate or invalidate that as a good work of art. I suspect that the vast majority of such works (if they exist) are schlock, and possibly largely for that reason (or perhaps the other way around--not schlock because unplayable, but unplayable because schlock). I want to allow that a game might be unplayable by us because it is beyond our ability, but is still a great game for the right players, who just don't happen to exist in this age.

Certainly playability is a correct standard to use in writing a game review; but I think even in an architectural review you could say that a building was striking, solid, well-built, beautiful, and inspiring, even if it was terrible at serving its intended function. It's important to understand that the service of the function is part of what makes it artistically meritorious, but not the whole of the matter.

I think we're probably agreed?

--M. J. Young

clehrich wrote: Doesn't this mean that you could have a system/setting/etc. that is unplayable but still a work of art?

Hey Chris,

But basically the work of art in RPGs resides in the medium of play...

I agree with you. But there's a lesson to be learned from Nicotine Girls, I think.

It won the "Best Free Game" category of Andy's Indie RPG Awards more than a year after it was released, despite never having been played by any of the voters. And folks routinely go out of their way to post publicly or email me privately that they'd never play Nicotine Girls.

So, by all accounts but my own, Nicotine Girls is an art-object game. It's an art object because of how people react to it. They perceive it to be broadcasting a message and then feel the need to position themselves relative to it.

So, saying that the art in RPGs is the experience of play is just us firing off an opinion of how we'd personally like the aesthetic sensibilities of the world to work, because empirically, that's not how the world understands the art in RPGs.

Paul

The playability of HOL is debatable. Certainly I've talked with people who say that they have played it. But I'd agree that it fits the bill here. Violence*, possibly as well.

Consider an RPG that required the players to actually kill themselves at the start, and then to come back to life to finish the rest of the game. I'd call that impossible to play. Still, it could be a work of art on it's own. One could have a play as a similar text, and it could certainly be considered a work of art.

That all said, I think that an RPG's text's playability can be a work of art, and facilitate art, and as such that's what I'm after, personally. But I wouldn't discount other forms out of hand.

Mike

*Actually, I'm not sure it's Violence (Hogshead) I'm thinking of; that might be playable. But in the game I'm remembering, you are supposed to actually (you the player, not the character) do vile things that come up in play. Anyone?

Paul Czege wrote: And folks routinely go out of their way to post publicly or email me privately that they'd never play Nicotine Girls.

Hey Chris,

Earlier in this thread you wrote:

There is no question in my mind, at least, that RPGs have no intrinsic limitations from achieving major artistic goals. There are a number of historical reasons why they have not as yet been accepted as such, but I think there are two especial reasons arising from the medium as it stands.

1. The art-object has no audience. Insofar as it can be said to have an audience, that audience is sufficiently constricted (only experienced RPG players) that outside criticism cannot see the value or achievement. (See the Confused Agendas post.)

2. Very few RPGs have taken this goal seriously, or attempted to do more than entertain and sell some copy.

And I just wanted place the lesson of Nicotine Girls relative to your notions of the lack of an RPG art appreciating audience. Roleplaying games achieve sustained popularity through play. And art, to most folks, isn't something you experience like that. It's a broadcast that you form an opinion about. If Nicotine Girls ever achieves popularity it won't be from some emergence of a community of art-appreciating gamers; it'll be because folks ultimately realize that it is what I say it is, a game experience.

And the membership of any community of "RPGs as art" appreciators that might arise probably won't be characterized by much actual play.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: 1. The art-object has no audience. Insofar as it can be said to have an audience, that audience is sufficiently constricted (only experienced RPG players) that outside criticism cannot see the value or achievement.

And I just wanted place the lesson of Nicotine Girls relative to your notions of the lack of an RPG art appreciating audience. Roleplaying games achieve sustained popularity through play. And art, to most folks, isn't something you experience like that. It's a broadcast that you form an opinion about. If Nicotine Girls ever achieves popularity it won't be from some emergence of a community of art-appreciating gamers; it'll be because folks ultimately realize that it is what I say it is, a game experience. ... And the membership of any community of "RPGs as art" appreciators that might arise probably won't be characterized by much actual play.

The performers aren't also audience? Or is that a special sort of audience?

Mike

Oh, they're certainly audience, but yes -- that's a special sort of audience. I'd argue that this is importantly true of ritual as well as music, i.e. that the performers are themselves their own audience, but it is a somewhat unusual way to look at things.

Well, I'd say that they're similar enough as sorts of audiences that the end result is the same. Someone is there to appreciate the result of play as an objet d'art.

For the text it's the reader, obviously.

Mike

clehrich wrote: So the art-object in an RPG has, as a rule, no audience.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines art:

art: ... 4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination esp. in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced ...

John Kirk wrote: All that art requires is the deliberate use of one's skills and imagination to produce something that is, primarily, aesthetically pleasing. That doesn't mean the artist succeeds. The world is full of "bad" art. All that is important is the attempt.

Some role-playing games are strictly utilitarian. I believe most, if not all, of the games produced by "committee" fall into this category. D&D is a prime example. D&D is produced to satisfy the needs and desires of customers. Period. That doesn't make it a bad role-playing game, it just doesn't meet the definition that its major aim is aesthetics.

John Kim wrote: I think many great works of art are so because they followed what people enjoyed. This is a core of most oral tradition: with many repetitions, stories get modified, dropped, or extended based on what people like to hear. You can see a similar thing today in, say, comics. Superman, say, has much in common with earlier myths, in that he has evolved and changed based on popularity. I would say that this doesn't make him less important as art -- I would say it make him more important.

Ron Edwards wrote: So to me, the role-playing rules text is a set of instruments, maybe a mixing board, and perhaps extending the analogy even to the bag of snacks set aside for breaks. Without play, it all just sits there. Nothing there is the music, except when in use.

Emote Control wrote: On the other hand an instrument's artistic power is solely dependent on the knowledge and skills of the musician.

John Kirk wrote: 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?

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

John Kirk wrote: 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.

John Kirk wrote: 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.

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

C. Edwards wrote: 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.

C. Edwards wrote: 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.

Hey John,

John Kim wrote: 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 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

M.J. Young wrote: 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?

C. Edwards wrote: 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.

C. Edwards wrote: 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.

Thanks John,

John Kim wrote: 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>

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 wrote:

John Kim wrote: 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 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."

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

Hey Mike,

Good to be here. Thanks for your kind words.