Can story games be art?

edited August 2007 in Story Games
Can story games be art? I say yes, and I'll explain why when I wake up later today.

Make your case for or against.

GO!
«1

Comments

  • All role-playing games, all story-games are by definition art.

    This is something sort of trivial, like asking "can dogs be mammals?"

    yrs--
    --Ben
  • Gonna need your definition of Art before I can answer. My answer, according to my definition*, is yes they can but they aren't automatically.

    * My definition being "stuff I really dig that doesn't somehow disqualify itself"
  • Posted By: James McMurrayGonna need your definition of Art before I can answer. My answer, according to my definition*, is yes they can but they aren't automatically.

    * My definition being "stuff I really dig that doesn't somehow disqualify itself"
    I'm interested in subjective answers and opinions here. I'm really curious on where the community falls on this. I don't think I've really seen this explicitly talked about here, so it my be that there's some valuable insight that can come out here.

    I'm too tired to go into depth on this, but my thoughts are that art is created with intent.
  • You talking about the actual artifact (like a book) or are you talking about game play?
  • I'm willing to talk about both, but I'm really talking about the game itself. part of that is the gameplay, part of that is that artifact, but th game is more then just those two things. I think.
  • edited August 2007
    Yeah I disagree... The artifact can be art. Game play is not. Game play can certainly inspire art, but is not in of itself art.
  • edited August 2007
    Artifact: Absolutely.
    Gameplay: Hmmm. Harder to convince me of it, unless we get esoteric with the word "art", and apply it to "way of/craft of" etc.

    EDIT: Cross posted with another Polack.
  • Andy, can acting be art?

    Mike
  • I don't see how they couldn't.

    Per
  • I find it odd that the prevailant opinion seems to be that gameplay can't be art.

    For me, both game books and gameplay can be art. I'm not sure I even understand the distinction between something being art directly and "inspiring" art. Is that saying that something created within a game, say a beautiful speech or impromptu poem, might be art, but that this doesn't count as the gameplay itself being art? Again, I don't see the distinction.

    Here are some definitions of art quickly found online:

    "The creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works, e.g. in painting, music, or writing" (MS ENcarta)

    "Activities enjoyed for the beauty they create or the way they present ideas, e.g. painting, music, and literature" (MS Encarta)

    "The making or doing of something whose purpose is to bring pleasure to people through their enjoyment of what is beautiful and interesting, or things often made for this purpose, such as paintings, drawings, or sculptures" (Cambridge Dictionary of American English)

    Isn't a story art? If so, how is gameplay which tells a story not art?
  • Gameplay isn't story. It is gameplay. Tell me what happened later. That is story. Gameplay is exactly that, gameplay. It is no more art than a boardgame or playing Halo or talking about how you are going to plot out your comic over beers.
  • Artifact: Not necessarily, depends on many things and these depend on definition of art in question. I my self use very broad art definition, only because it suits my own agendas. If we follow the strict institutionalized art theory then artifact is only art if its made by artist (we don't want to go there, believe me). Bit broader definition would come from principle that everything that fills definitions for art-piece is art would mean that game artifact is art if its innovative and it's defining subject in question somehow. Generally speaking.

    Gameplay: It's art. period. Except in institutional art theory, except it's played by artists :) Gameplay has all the elements of art with in it self, pretty much in same way as novel or theatrical script or play it self. Also it invokes feelings in participants (audience + artists).

    I might get more specific if you'd like, when I have more time on my hands..

    Yours sincerely,
    Santtu Määttänen
    Producer, artist, corporate bitch
  • edited August 2007
    Posted By: Keith SenkowskiYeah I disagree... The artifact can be art. Game play is not. Game play can certainly inspire art, but is not in of itself art.
    Interesting, I'm starting this discussion thinking the opposite. The artifact is not art (thought pieces of it may have some artistic merit), the game play may be art, in the same way that a recipe or knitting pattern is not art, but the final product could be.

    But I am open to persuasion.

    If RPGs can be art, are all RPGs art? If not, what distinguishes art from not-art in this case?

    If art lies in the artifact, not the play, is it just in the rules? Is it still art without the layout, artwork, examples of play? Is the open source version still art?
  • Fucking Fauxlock. Story Now is art. There is no retelling necessary. Creative shit went down, spontaneously. People consumed it while simultaneously creating it. It was, at that moment, art. It is not art "later" when we write a story about it. It's art right at that point in time.

    It does the same thing other art does to us, the partakers, particularly performance art. It's like like jazz. Or whatever else. Tell me that live performance I saw of, oh, Bob Dylan in 2005 wasn't art, and I'll kick you in the nuts.
  • Posted By: Keith SenkowskiGameplay isn't story. It is gameplay. Tell me what happened later. That is story. Gameplay is exactly that, gameplay. It is no more art than a boardgame or playing Halo or talking about how you are going to plot out your comic over beers.
    I think I'm with Keith. Art is primarily produced for someone to perceive. Acting isn't art if no-one's in the audience; in that case, it's rehearsal. When people start watching people roleplay for the sake of enjoying the performance, then it might be art.

    As to game artifact as art, on that point I'm not sure either. What are the aesthetic qualities that signify RPG as art? I mean, I can understand that it could be appreciated as an exemplar of a book (for example, "Nobilis" as an example of beautiful book design). But I'm not sure that the game, qua game, is art anymore than the rules for chess are art.

    Mind you, look at the number of people who purchase rolegame rules and supplements knowing full well that they'll never use them for actual play. Do you think these people are engaging in wishful behaviour, or a method of participation in the hobby distinct from play? If the latter, then I suppose a case could be made of the artifact as art.
  • edited August 2007
    Damn, Matt got there before me!

    May I quote my friend Joe thanking Joe Prince after our Contenders game: "Thank you, Joe. This game makes art happen," Fucking does.

    Per
    (edit: apologies for all the Joes in my post - but they are two different people.)
  • Generally speaking important question is not what art is or what can be thought as art. More important and radical discussion can take place if we discuss who is allowed to be an artist and why. As art as such defines our reality, it borderlines things inside things called "pieces" and such create these creative barriers of reality. So real question arises from discussion who is allowed to be artist, who can define "pieces", who can define reality.

    I cant seem to think straight anymore, but I might elaborate my self at morning :)
  • I've always thought art was awfully inclusive.

    I'm not sure, in fact, that there is any activity that I would say couldn't be art ... though I agree that some people don't find the creative potential in (for instance) taking out the garbage or playing Halo.

    I don't really understand the desire to exclude things from consideration. Does saying "This isn't art!" really convey anything objective? Or is it just an aggressive way of confessing "I'm not creative enough to make art through this instrument"?
  • The audience is there when playing a game. It's everyone who's involved.

    In fact, some games (e.g. PTA and Shock:) have designated audience rules.

    Humans have a hard time not making art. It takes years of schooling and other denial of humanity to beat it out of you.

  • Generally speaking important question is not what art is or what can be thought as art. More important and radical discussion can take place if we discuss who is allowed to be an artist and why.

    This is the worst thing I've ever heard said.

    Um... that didn't involve a blender and a puppy.

  • nowadays anything even remotely interesting is called "art"

    so much so that the word "art" doesn't have any actual meaning anymore

    so to me, this question is self-defeating

    if you want "art" to mean something, you have to give it a rather exclusive meaning, sticking to the traditinal art forms

    if you don't, the thing you're interested in can be called "art", but the label itself loses all significance

    in short: my answer is no
  • "Pronunciation: 'ärt
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM
    ...
    4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced"

    Anybody else see that "especially" in there? Thought so.

    To my thinking, a live RPG session is to a finished object of story what a group of musicians improvising on a song is to a finished object of music. It's just that you generally don't see the product of an RPG session polished up and perfected for sale to a larger audience.
  • There's performance art.

    Anyway. It's a label. I really don't care if what I do/create/share fits anyone else's label.
  • The play, always.

    The artifact, sometimes, and usually in ways unrelated to the play it produces.
  • I hope so because that way there would be more art in the world and that's good because art feeds you and needs to be everywhere >>>

    also, since conceptual art, whatever one thinks of it, is like one of the longest lasting dominant form of visual/sculptural art in the modern western world, it makes sense that if a concept/instruction to create can be considered art then a system designed to guide/inspire creative play can easily be considered high art
  • I don't mean this in a threadcrappy way, but why does it matter?
  • Can anyone recommend a good supers game?
  • Posted By: Jared A. SorensenCan anyone recommend a good supers game?
    I'm into Marvel Superheroes.

    yrs--
    --Ben
  • Posted By: Robert BohlI don't mean this in a threadcrappy way, but why does it matter?
    This is my question, as well.
  • I don't think anyone is interested in finding out whether it's really, really art or not.

    I think a survey of "Hey, what does this community, overall, think on this question? What's the range of opinion, and how is it expressed?" is a worthy question being well answered by the thread.

    To me, that's the point.
  • Posted By: Ben LehmanI'm into Marvel Superheroes.
    As are all True Believers. 'Nuff said.
  • Posted By: Robert BohlI don't mean this in a threadcrappy way, but why does it matter?
    Presumably if an RPG can be art, then RPGs as a medium get the green light to go into any and all subject matter.

    Personally I think it's the wrong question, given that "what is art?" is frankly unanswerable, and the theoreticians' meaning of art really doesn't apply. The right question probably needs to be something along the lines of, "Can RPGs be used for purposes other than entertainment?" RPGs, mind you, not the broader activity of "roleplaying," which again has therapeutic meanings that are tangential at best.

    If you're going to say yes, if you're going to defend an RPG's use for purposes other than entertainment, then a whole lot of responsibility goes along with that. If an RPG is useful only as an entertainment, then your responsibility ends at providing someone a good time.

    I have yet to see* a game that deals with "serious" issues (for purposes beyond entertainment -- education, exploration) written by anyone who actually knows what the fuck they're talking about. At best, IMO there have been some excellent designs that simulate/emulate literary treatments of such subjects. Example: Changeling, as I understand it, works from the assumption that characters are abused children. If it's anything like the first go-round, it makes no effort to simulate/emulate the experience of being an abused child. It's a standard fairy-tale starting point that's an easy touchstone for fans of, say, Neil Gaiman and other urban-fantasy writers.

    I'd be extremely curious about the credentials and agenda behind a game like Steal Away Jordan. Is the intent to explore the experience of slavery, or to recreate the literary treatment of slavery?

    I know this thread was started somewhat by my comment in the "subject matter" thread about whether RPGs have any business being anything other than entertainment. Yes, I know this question was asked of comic book artists (and movies, and novels, and virtually every other pop-culture medium in our lives) and obviously the answer came as a strong affirmative. So my instinct is that, yes, RPGs can be used for purposes other than "mere" entertainment. What I have yet to see is a design philosophy that also embraces the responsibility that goes with that.

    p.

    * "Yet to see" obviously refers only to games with which I have personal experience. I'm not omniscient.
  • Posted By: Paul BThe right question probably needs to be something along the lines of, "Can RPGs be used for purposes other than entertainment?"
    Doesn't seem, to me, to have much connection to the first question (which may say something about what I do and don't think about art). Maybe a good question for another thread?
  • If RPGs can be art, are all RPGs art?
    No.
    If not, what distinguishes art from not-art in this case?
    Intent.

    Wait, let me start from the beginning.

    I started this thread before I went to sleep yesterday. This was spurred by a comment Paul made in another thread, but is a subject that I've been interested in for about a year now. My purpose here was to poll this community on what I think is a relevant subject and see what kind of discussion came as a result. I knew my answer to the question before hand, but I was curious to see what other responses would be presented.

    I think this question is a difficult one for this community for a few reasons:

    -It's clear that most people won't and don't agree on what art is in the first place. Asking if Story Games can be art is always going to be subjective and depend largely on an individual’s definition of art. Hoog presented one extreme when he said "if you want "art" to mean something, you have to give it a rather exclusive meaning, sticking to the traditional art forms". I lean in a different direction (I lean hard), but I don't know if there is a universal right answer here.

    -Some of us don't want or need games to be art. I think there are a lot of us who are happy for games to be game and not have any higher aspiration then that. I know comic artists who feel the same way about comics and actors who feel the same way about acting. Again, I don't know if there is a universal right answer here.

    -It's obvious that if some games are art, certainly not all games are. This creates the seemingly nasty issue that Santtu alluded to. Who is allowed to be artists? If a designer claims that her design is art, is she an artist? Is she allowed to be an artist without the recognition of her audience?

    -Can games do more then just entertain? I personally think that one of the primary purposes of art is to confront and examine social issues. But that may just be a "me" thing. Certainly art has to do more then entertain to be art, right?

    Those are the questions that seem really important to me (although there are several additional important issues that are being addressed here as well).

    (continued...)
  • Something else worth considering is that a Storygame is in fact a number of distinct things that are combined to make a whole (whether the whole is in fact art or not). So far most of this discussion has broken games down into two parts, the physical artifact and the gameplay. I think there is a third part as well, and it is this third part that I am primarily concerned with.

    Is the physical artifact art? I think most of us would agree that a book as a physical object (or scroll, or poster or whatever) can be art. Book making is recognized by many as an art form, and there is certainly any number of beautifully made and crafted books in the world.

    Is the experience (gameplay) art? This seems to be a matter of more contention. I think when I've seen "gameplay" mentioned in this thread it's been in the context of the social activity that results from a group of people following a games suggested rules and guidelines to create an immersive storytelling experience. The "role playing" using the games rules and suggestions. So is this art? There have been comparisons made to theatre and jazz which seem pretty apt to me. There have also been claims that the activity itself isn't art, but perhaps could inspire art in the form of a story, comic, illustration, etc*. It seems clear to me that this community has some diverse opinions on this matter.

    Are designs art? See, this is what I was really asking. Not whether the book a design is contained in is art and not whether the activity the design inspires is art, but whether the design itself can be art. A Story Game design exists as an entity separate from both its physical form and the reaction and response of its audience (I think this is true of all art, but I haven't put the brain hours into thinking that through yet). It's an idea that has been crafted, developed and polished. So my question, the question I wanted to ask all of you, is whether Story Game designs can be art.

    Here's the kicker (as I see it). If Story Games (artifact, experience, design or a combination of the three) can be art, certainly not all of them ARE art. Many Story Games (maybe most) are created to be games. And if some are art, certainly not all are GOOD art.

    As I said at the beginning of this series of posts, I think what distinguishes art from non-art is intent. If you intend to make art, then you will end up with art. Whether it's good art or bad art depends on your own skill and talent. If you have no artistic ambitions (by that I mean, if you are not setting out to create art) then your end product won't be art. You may end up with a beautiful, amazing worthwhile game, but it won't be art because that was not your intent. There's no judgment of value there. I'm not saying art is better then non-art, or that designers should create games with the goal of creating art. I actually think this is probably pretty involuntary on the part of designers. You either feel like you are creating art or you don't. And regardless of whether you are creating art at all, you certainly feel like what you are creating is worthwhile.

    Again, this is just my own opinion. And as I said before, I think this is all pretty subjective. I think that pretty much any creative activity can be art. I think that a lot of people don't think that their designs can be art because what they do doesn't fit into their definition of what art is. I imagine there are a lot of people that are creating designs with the intent of art, without recognizing that it's okay to say that is indeed what they are doing. You have to give yourself permission to be an artist.

    (continued...)
  • Of course, not everyone is or wants to create designs with the intent of art. This isn't a matter of denying their inner artist or anything like that. Rather, not everything of value in the world is art. I think it's perfectly possible to create a great game design without considering it to be art. I think this has been done before many times. I think it's valid for a person to say "my design is not art". I don't think that makes the design any less potentially valuable and worthwhile then someone who says "my design is art".

    I'll answer my own question now: Can Story Games be art?

    Yes, I think they can.

    My own natural assumption was that Story Games were an emergent art form. I saw signs of this in the first Story Games I was exposed to. This seemed like a natural approach to me because of my own background. I've been a working artist for about 5 years and I've considered myself an artist since I was about 12. I'm also an art teacher. None of this qualifies my opinions in any way, but I hope this will give what I've been saying some context.

    I don't think any artist considers everything they do to be art. I know that a lot of the drawing that I do, mostly freelance work, is not art. It lacks artistic intent. There is a clear difference to me when I sit down to create art. It's a difference of attention, dedication, creativity, focus, physical dexterity and interest. When I sit down to simply draw (or paint, or write) something, none of these differences come into play. When I sit down to create art, my entire existence becomes focused on the activity at hand. It's a Zen-like state of absolute creative focus. I can literally feel the difference.

    I bring this focus to my game designs. I create my games with the intent of creating art. To me that means they are art. Are they good art? I suspect not. Dave Sim once said that you have to draw a few thousand bad drawings before you'll draw your first good one. I've designed 2 games. Clearly I'm not there yet.





    So... these are my opinions, thoughts and justifications. I believe this was a question worth addressing, and I'm glad that this community agreed. I don't think we need, or should have, a clear consensus on this issue. Rather, each of us will form our own opinion, and there is a lot of value that can come out of the debate and discussion of this question.

    Thanks for participating. I don't see any reason to stop yet.

    Jake
    jake@atarashigames.com








    *My favorite thing so far in this thread was the statement that "acting isn't art if no one is in the audience". Is sculpture not art if no one is looking at it? Does the statue of david stop being art when the lights go out? Certainly art demands the context of human participation, but isn't that participation implicit in the creation of the art itself?
  • The other thing is, of course, story game play always has an audience. The players. I'm not sure where we got the notion that we can't be creator and audience at the same time. If I can't, I'll have to videotape my sessions so I can enjoy them!

    One of the things that caught my attention in your above posts Jake is this bit
    -Some of us don't want or need games to be art. I think there are a lot of us who are happy for games to be game and not have any higher aspiration then that. I know comic artists who feel the same way about comics and actors who feel the same way about acting. Again, I don't know if there is a universal right answer here.

    I think what's interesting about this bit is the sense that art is something elevated. The feeling implied in some reactions that if are games are art, then we are suddenly called upon to treat them or interact with them in a different way than we already are. A sense that if we are not elevating them to the level of art, or at least working towards it, that we are being lesser game players.

    I have a whole rant on the what is art thing... I teach art appreciation and it's a discussion I have every semester. But I'm too tired to go on at the moment.

    --T
  • I think what's interesting about this bit is the sense that art is something elevated. The feeling implied in some reactions that if are games are art, then we are suddenly called upon to treat them or interact with them in a different way than we already are. A sense that if we are not elevating them to the level of art, or at least working towards it, that we are being lesser game players.

    Oh, that wasn't my intent. I was trying hard to not say that, actually. Umm... I think that will be the case for some people. I think some people do put art (or the concept of "art") on a pedestal. I don't think that creating a game without the intent of art makes the game inferior to something that was created with the intent of art. It's just a difference of intent. It may be unavoidable that "art games" become looked at differently then "normal games", in the same way that "art comics" are looked at differently then "normal comics". I don't think that this has to be a bad thing. The important thing to remember is that different does not mean better.
  • edited August 2007
    Posted By: jake richmond
    I don't think that creating a game without the intent of art makes the game inferior to something that was created with the intent of art. It's just a difference of intent.
    Is the distinction of utility to the consumer? And how does the consumer know what the designer's intent was?

    "We are here at GenCon, where we've secretly replaced the fine games they usually play with art. Let's see if anyone can tell the difference!"
  • Gameplay as art is in many ways similar to photography as art. Technology is provided to everyone, why some make art with it and others don't? And does it matter? Discussion seems both frustrating and also satisfying. Please continue :) I might take time from my work to elaborate my self some more today :)
  • Is the distinction of utility to the consumer?
    No. I don't think so. I see it as a personal thing.
    And how does the consumer know what the designer's intent was?
    The designer can tell them if they want. But I don't think it really matters. This isn't a consumer concern so much as a creator concern. There's likely no tangible benefit to the consumer here. Except of course...

    Someone mentioned that labeling games as art gives them permission to tackle la rger issues and act as more then just entertainment. I don't think this is true (I think games can do this anyway, whetehr they ae art or not and regardless of what they are called), but it may be a percieved truth. If making or playing an "art game" lets you feel more comfortable addressing "issues", then that may be a good thing.
  • Posted By: Jared A. SorensenCan anyone recommend a good supers game?
    There's this new supers game in development called Darkpages. You should go look it up!
  • Posted By: jake richmond
    -It's obvious that if some games are art, certainly not all games are.This creates the seemingly nasty issue that Santtu alluded to. Who is allowed to be artists? If a designer claims that her design is art, is she an artist? Is she allowed to be an artist without the recognition of her audience?
    Why is this obvious? The opposite is obvious to me.
    Posted By: jake richmond
    -Can games do more then just entertain?I personally think that one of the primary purposes of art is to confront and examine social issues. But that may just be a "me" thing. Certainly art has to do more then entertain to be art, right?
    Why is "not just for entertainment value" related to artistic quality? It seems to me that the vast majority of art is primarily entertainment.

    yrs--
    --Ben
  • Posted By: Paul BPersonally I think it's the wrong question, given that "what is art?" is frankly unanswerable, and the theoreticians' meaning of art really doesn't apply. The right question probably needs to be something along the lines of, "Can RPGs be used for purposes other than entertainment?"RPGs, mind you, not the broader activity of "roleplaying," which again has therapeutic meanings that are tangential at best.

    If you're going to say yes, if you're going to defend an RPG's use for purposes other than entertainment, then a whole lot of responsibility goes along with that. If an RPG is useful only as an entertainment, then your responsibility ends at providing someone a good time.

    I have yet to see* a game that deals with "serious" issues (for purposes beyond entertainment -- education, exploration) written by anyone who actually knows what the fuck they're talking about. At best, IMO there have been some excellent designs that simulate/emulate literary treatments of such subjects. Example: Changeling, as I understand it, works from the assumption that characters are abused children. If it's anything like the first go-round, it makes no effort to simulate/emulate the experience of being an abused child. It's a standard fairy-tale starting point that's an easy touchstone for fans of, say, Neil Gaiman and other urban-fantasy writers.

    I'd be extremely curious about the credentials and agenda behind a game like Steal Away Jordan. Is the intent to explore the experience of slavery, or to recreate the literary treatment of slavery?
    Your point about responsibility is interesting - but wrapped around an insultingly phrased assumption that people designing games are unqualified to address serious topics. From my perspective, if designer A has read a few books about a subject that I know little and is thoughtful about how they structure the game experience, system, advice etc, then their game can educate me and allow me to explore the topic. I won't come out of the game with the depth or subtlety of knowledge & experience than I would if I spent years studying or living the issue- but I'll have some exposure, a chance to think about the issue, and to address it through role-playing, collaborative narration, or whatever techniques the game uses. Most rpgs/story games list their sources and often the designer writes a bit about why they are interested in the subject, so there is a baseline of transparency as to the origins of the ideas within. If you have a higher threshold of expertise, that's fine, but I'm not sure to what end.

    On the more useful issue of responsibility, if a game is designed to educate, then one can draw upon the pedagogical lessons of a generation of classroom learning/simulation games and the newer serious games movement focused on computer games. I'm intrigued by the potential for advocacy games, say a rpg where characters are fighters in a low intensity civil war and the point of the game is to convince players to get active in the movement to restrict the global trade in small arms. Does the designer have an obligation to say up front that this game is intended to convince you of X or Y? Should the designed try to affiliate with/ get feedback from existing networks or advocacy groups working on that issue?

  • Why is "not just for entertainment value" related to artistic quality? It seems to me that the vast majority of art is primarily entertainment.
    --Ben
    I'll build on Ben's question and ask: is entertainment different from art? How?
  • Your point about responsibility is interesting - but wrapped around an insultingly phrased assumption that people designing games are unqualified to address serious topics.
    Yes, insultingly phrased. Absolutely. I'm not apologizing for it. When I look at a "serious" RPG, an RPG that aspires to something more than light entertainment, I have yet to get any sense that the designer has any meaningful insight into the issue. No, I'm not going to name specific titles. The answer probably is, my threshold is higher than yours, and that's cool.

    On a related note: There's a whole generation of movie makers out there whose entire life experience has been watching movies. Their resulting work is nothing more than a pastiche of other movie influences, because they bring nothing of themselves into the work. There's nothing to bring! The result may be stylish (Michael Bay, Quentin Tarantino, etc.) but there's no truth within it.

    I'm concerned this is happening in game design as well: Games designed by folks whose entire life experience is other games. That, for me, is where the responsibility of an artist comes in. You have to be true to your subject. Work from what you know -- just the same as other serious media. That is, if you want your work to aspire to the level of "art", and take the work beyond artsy/stylish entertainment, your insights and experiences need to come from the real world.

    Personally? I'm all for designing artsy/stylist entertainments. I think RPGs do them well and there's a lot of additional exploration to be done, and I personally derive a lot of pleasure from entertaining people. But if I wanted to use an RPG for purposes beyond entertainment, I'd be absolutely certain I was true to the topic or issue or theme. That has to involve more than scouring history books for hooks.

    p.
  • Posted By: Kent
    Why is "not just for entertainment value" related to artistic quality? It seems to me that the vast majority of art is primarily entertainment.
    --Ben
    I'll build on Ben's question and ask: is entertainment different from art? How?

    "Art" is a bourgeois affectation?
  • Posted By: komradebob
    "Art" is a bourgeois affectation?
    So, just clarifying, your belief is that if it's for the entertainment of the bourgeois it's art?

    yrs--
    --Ben
  • Posted By: Ben LehmanPosted By: komradebob
    "Art" is a bourgeois affectation?
    So, just clarifying, your belief is that if it's for the entertainment of the bourgeois it's art?

    yrs--
    --Ben

    Heh. No, I believe that the bourgeoisie calls their entertainment "art" to differentiate it from the entertainment of the classes on either side of them.
  • Posted By: Kent
    Why is "not just for entertainment value" related to artistic quality? It seems to me that the vast majority of art is primarily entertainment.
    --Ben

    I'll build on Ben's question and ask: is entertainment different from art? How?

    Art doesn't need to be entertaining to be art, entertainment doesn't need to be art to entertain. Thats the main point, if you want to take this discussion on much broader spectrum then games / story games, I'd love to write on this subject. That would finally make my years of studying the subject useful :)
Sign In or Register to comment.