Games, Art, Power, and Me
Every time I read part of the ongoing argument about "are RPGs art or not" my immediate reaction is "what the hell do you mean by art?"
See I'm a post-positivist, a social constructivist, and a neo-Marxist. So when I hear the word art I do not instantly think of subjective purposiveness without a purpose, or any Kant, Hume, or Socrates. I think "power." Art is a loaded term. Art is a word used to give value to one human endeavor or activity above another. Art is a way of saying "This thing is important to my stance on the human social condition and gives/takes power away from the part of society I inhabit."
This can be anything from Du Bois's ""Thus all art is propaganda and ever must be, despite the wailing of the purists ..." to the Frankfurt school's contrasting of "mass culture" with "high culture" and "folk culture." (The short version of which is "pop" then "art" then "craft" as judgmental terms meant to divide power along class lines – the rich and powerful decide what is art, pop is given to the mass of the middle class, and the things pursued by those without the cultural capital to enforce their taste on a large or marketable segment of society are relegated to the place of "folk crafts.") For me personally the biggest influence on my thought is probably Gramsci and his take on art's role in hegemonic distribution. Art, he says as I do, is something that people use in order to make everyone else accept their cultural power plays. If it is art, after all, you are a bad person if you try to stop it, a pig if you don't understand it, and a bore if you try to dismiss it.
So every time I see these discussions I don't start thinking, "Well what would Kant say?" I think "Why is it that we do and do not find RPGs worthy of giving them a title of power and prestige?" So I watch the arguments, and look for the power dynamics behind them.
Many gamers who answer "yes" are saying "I believe that games are worthy enough to be given the social position of privilege and power because they are important to my life and I don't want to feel like a loser. Its art because that makes me important."
Many gamers who answer "no" are saying "I believe that games should just be fun, and I don't want to take them seriously. If I have to admit that the games I play might say something about me, then I'll feel weird."
So, with all that context, my answer to the question of "are RPGs art" is: "Yes" and by that mean "I believe that games are worthy enough to be given the social position of privilege and power because they are fun and they are play, and fun and play are very worthy things."
Remember why I titled this blog? Because empires rise and fall upon games. Religions are based around fun and its place in humanity. Games create fun, and they have the potential to do so in a non-commercial*, personal, and individual way. That is wonderful. That is fun. That is serious. That is Art, because I want it to be important. Not because of some real an sich disembodied judgment of quality, but because it is a statement of social construction that I consider worthy of making.
Folk craft my ass.
*Think for a few moments about the folk-craft vs. pop culture vs. art implications of the Forge's emphasis on owner creation and distribution. No, seriously.
See I'm a post-positivist, a social constructivist, and a neo-Marxist. So when I hear the word art I do not instantly think of subjective purposiveness without a purpose, or any Kant, Hume, or Socrates. I think "power." Art is a loaded term. Art is a word used to give value to one human endeavor or activity above another. Art is a way of saying "This thing is important to my stance on the human social condition and gives/takes power away from the part of society I inhabit."
This can be anything from Du Bois's ""Thus all art is propaganda and ever must be, despite the wailing of the purists ..." to the Frankfurt school's contrasting of "mass culture" with "high culture" and "folk culture." (The short version of which is "pop" then "art" then "craft" as judgmental terms meant to divide power along class lines – the rich and powerful decide what is art, pop is given to the mass of the middle class, and the things pursued by those without the cultural capital to enforce their taste on a large or marketable segment of society are relegated to the place of "folk crafts.") For me personally the biggest influence on my thought is probably Gramsci and his take on art's role in hegemonic distribution. Art, he says as I do, is something that people use in order to make everyone else accept their cultural power plays. If it is art, after all, you are a bad person if you try to stop it, a pig if you don't understand it, and a bore if you try to dismiss it.
So every time I see these discussions I don't start thinking, "Well what would Kant say?" I think "Why is it that we do and do not find RPGs worthy of giving them a title of power and prestige?" So I watch the arguments, and look for the power dynamics behind them.
Many gamers who answer "yes" are saying "I believe that games are worthy enough to be given the social position of privilege and power because they are important to my life and I don't want to feel like a loser. Its art because that makes me important."
Many gamers who answer "no" are saying "I believe that games should just be fun, and I don't want to take them seriously. If I have to admit that the games I play might say something about me, then I'll feel weird."
So, with all that context, my answer to the question of "are RPGs art" is: "Yes" and by that mean "I believe that games are worthy enough to be given the social position of privilege and power because they are fun and they are play, and fun and play are very worthy things."
Remember why I titled this blog? Because empires rise and fall upon games. Religions are based around fun and its place in humanity. Games create fun, and they have the potential to do so in a non-commercial*, personal, and individual way. That is wonderful. That is fun. That is serious. That is Art, because I want it to be important. Not because of some real an sich disembodied judgment of quality, but because it is a statement of social construction that I consider worthy of making.
Folk craft my ass.
*Think for a few moments about the folk-craft vs. pop culture vs. art implications of the Forge's emphasis on owner creation and distribution. No, seriously.
posted by Bradley "Brand" Robins at 9:45 PM
21 Comments:
Amen, Mister.
Brand,
So would my definition hold up under the way you are looking at it? I am basically saying that play doesn't become art until it is impacting people outside the creation process. There it gains power. Otherwise it is craft, which is powerless.
Keith,
I'm a social constructivist, and much influenced by the work of Anthongy Giddens. One of the very simplified ideas behind social constructivism is that he world is not made up only of macro-level bits, nor micro-level bits, but is formed by the interaction of those bits at multiple levels. Thus you can effect change by starting locally. Made into a soundbite this becomes "think globably, act locally."
So if your gaming can impact you and your friends, and those impacts can go on to change how you view life, then it has the potential to eventually impact the world. Not, mind you, that it will immediatly or neccisarily do so -- but it does gain the potential to do so.
To say that art can only change the world if it impacts at a mass scale is, in my view, to say that individuals without standing power are effectivly helpless to change the world. Which is rather depressing, don't you think?
However, even then I don't strictly define art by its transformative or impacting potential. Even if our games don't rock us to our core and make us, say, determined to fight homelessness it doesn't mean they can't change us. If we start to undo the millennia of "I became an adult and put away childish things" damage, for example, do you not think it could have an impact upon our children?
And because I hit submit before I finished cut and paste:
Also, I don't just consider the meta-level to be the only important level. Even if personal changes never carry over to the meta level they can still be important for what they are. All mysticism and vast tracts of religion and literary theory from Thomas Aquinas to "the hard gemlike flame" of Walter Pater all talk about the change of the self as the impact that matters most.
That we have traditionally looked for others, outsiders we do not know and who have agendas and power positions of their own, to deal with ourselves is rather odd. The death of folk as accepted art has, I believe, led to a lot of our growing cultural sense of alienation and disenfranchisement.
If all that RPGs can do is make us feel connected to people around us, and connected to ourselves, I would argue that they are of as much practical value as any other "art." r
Also, folks might want to check out this thread in which John Kim makes some excellent points.
As well as the replies by folks who can be decoded as saying, "I think it is silly to call it art because I refuse to take what I do seriously" or "Trying to do things that matter is ego stroking" as well as "Unless others accept it and embrace it with wonder it is not art."
Watch for the power dynamics behind the words, and you'll see some interesting things -- even if you don't agree with my Marxist leanings.
(To take the comment attributed to Ron: "Not yet, but soon." Would you think maybe Ron has an agenda towards what he wants RPGs to become, and uses the word art as part of trying to push for that goal?)
Well I am not trying to discount the notion that potential impact. I think it is there, but I think the process is craft instead of art. My line of logic dictates that the audience is the defining factor of the definition. If playing with friends goes on to help you craft a new mind set that leads you to do something great, awesome. I just don't think that sitting and creating is art in of itself.
To say that art can only change the world if it impacts at a mass scale is, in my view, to say that individuals without standing power are effectivly helpless to change the world. Which is rather depressing, don't you think?
Funny you should say this. I pretty much view the world this way. I sure hope for more, but experience in my lifetime is that there are too many barriers for people without standing power to effectively make great changes. The key word is effectively of course and nothing is absolute.
Keith,
You said "My line of logic dictates that the audience is the defining factor of the definition."
So the audience is where the power is? Because they have the power, or because they give you the power, or because your ability to change them is the power?
Oddly enough, there is a concept in rhetoric (my area of study) that says something similar to this. The logic of the argument is that you cannot have discourse unless you have 1) people that disagree about something and 2) a way for them to bridge the gap about that disagreement. You can talk without either of those, and you can argue without the second, but in order to have rhetorical discourse you must have both. Sounds like the structural logic of your definition of art is similar, yes?
You also said "but experience in my lifetime is that there are too many barriers for people without standing power to effectively make great changes."
I semi agree with this. The problem that I run into on the other hand is that unless people change themselves at the micro level as well (if not first) then the big changes those with power try to institute don't ever turn into changes for the better. Look at the difference between the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and the PC push of the 90s.
However, that's all secondary. My real point in the post is that the word "art" is a loaded term used to give power and privelage to some activities and culturally elevate them above others.
When you call one thing art and another thing not in the traditional sense, you are making a cultural value judgement and saying that one is essentially more worthy than the other. If you're doing that conciously, and for a reason, then bully for you. My big problem is that most gamers in the debate are being used by the word (victims of hegemony) rather than using the word.
That's a great essay, Brand. I'm a constructivist as well, though my influences started actually with Kant and folks in International Relations theory. If one follows Kant's thoughts on the Thing-in-Itself out there that we can never know per se, and how we construct reality out of that whole by carving it into separate objects and patterns, it's hard to think that our minds are not the things that actually create the world as we know it.
All terms we use to describe the world, then, in large parts determine how we see it. Knowledge of "true reality" is not attainable, but our subjective knowledge is always related to the Thing-in-Itself because we're indirectly perceiving the whole.
All that Enlightenment epistemology aside, one just needs to look at modern philosophers like Wittgenstein, Habermas and Foucault to see to see how language is used for power purposes. And I agree with you 100%; debates over definitions--and that's what the "is it art or not" discussion really is--are not about finding truth, but about distributing power.
Huh. My take on art is totally different.
For me, the capsule definition of art is "something creative and unnecessary done for the joy of it".
So if I knit a plain sweater in natural-colored wool for no reason other than to have a warm garment, that's not art. Once I start adding embellishment to it, that's art--at least, it was art on the part of the person who designed the embellishment, who may or may not be me, and when I'm done I have a garment that makes statements about what I like.
Similarly, playing Monopoly or Bridge is unlikely to be art, as most people just play by the rules. Once you start adding nascent roleplaying (to Monopoly, I can't think of a good way to add it to Bridge) it's art.
It's tough to have an rpg that doesn't lead to art; even the most complex set of rules is going to have bits where you have to improvise, and the merest hint of "what would My Guy do in this situation" implies some creativity.
There's also the dimension of "good" art versus "bad" art, at least in my mind. I know that sounds judgemental, but by "bad" I don't mean "that I don't like". For example, the film Pulp Fiction: it's well directed and well acted, it makes the point it intended to make, all the parts of the movie work together...and I hate it and never want to see it again. It's still good art. If you have an rpg that has well-thought-out, consistent rules that lead to a style of play that is at odds with its stated goal (*coughWoDcough*), that's bad art. Which is not to say gamers can't use those rules to make good art.
This is a lot more complex than I thought. :)
My brain is going to explode. Too many conversations going on at once about the same topic...
The rhetoric logic is spot on. Spot on. That is exactly how I came to my conclusion. Thanks so much for bringing this up. Super helpful.
I totally agree with what you are saying about the power of the word. That is the very reason I am defining it for myself. I am making a value judgment on what I consider art and giving myself power over the word instead of the other way around, which sounds funny to say outloud, but there it is.
And there you go, Brand, bringing your pinko-commie marxism into everything. Which all sounds about right on-target to me.
Xenopulse,
Funny enough, I started out with Kant to. The real an sich is still a big influence on all of my thought, and a huge component of my post-positivism. It's just that I've come to view his take on art and the aesthetic as being too culturally centered in the power discourse of both the ivory tower and the traditional nobility-centric view of production to be of any use to me.
So, um, yea... I think we're pretty much on the same page.
Carrie,
You just said in about half a page what it took Kant about 500 pages to say. You pretty much just defined "subjective purposiveness without a purpose" -- the idea that art must be something done for itself, without a functional purpose. He goes into huge and complicated logical fortresses of why this is the case, and so you can rest assured that you're walking with good company.
For myself I find the definition problematic. What about cars? Can a car be a work of art even though it is meant to be driven? And doesn't this give power and value to the people who have the money/position to produce things that have no tangible value?
However, you still find that RPGs can lead to art, so we're good. ;)
Keith,
Yea, I figured you were. That's why even though we may disagree in the end I still respect your opinion and stick up for you on the other thread. I understand your definition and the power dynamics behind it, and why you feel that way as a product of thought rather than just assumption. Which, really, is all I can ask for.
That and that you change the power dynamic of your discourse. ;)
Josh,
THE STATE IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.
DESTROY ALL NATIONS.
FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME.
Why you always gotta pick on Immanuel? He's just a failed comedian with a heart of gold (ref. the section on humour in Critique of Judgement. You can just hear the nightclub go dead.)
I always think of Kant first -- "free play of the imagination" is one of my favourite phrases in all of philosophy -- but I do think you're right about how the word "art" gets used, particularly in these sort of "is it or isn't it" discussions.
As for RPGs, of course they can be art -- it's just that that's not a very interesting conclusion except in this context of power and prestige, since the question of 'can RPGs be important' is an even more relevant/contentious question. Whether or not it's art seems more like a good starting place for other discussions, like 'what kind of art is it?' or 'how does it do that art thing it does?'
Then again, reading all these posts about RPGs and art mostly reminds me of how it usually takes six or eight hours of discussion just to get on the same page as someone about what they think art is, let alone try and move on from there.
Ice,
Yes, yes, yes, oh god yes.
That said, I'm thinking about a post about RPGs as cultural literacy vis a vie Boal and the Theatre of the Opressed, but that may be a bit of time considering I still am owing a Myers Briggs post and a Suryamaya post and like 3 AP posts....
Plus, it's going to be a hard post.
Brand,
What you say about power and the term 'art' is spot-on (and reminds me of Foucault and Nietzsche), but there is a problem with posts like these.
They severly impact your own ability to use the word 'art' as a way to influence people.
Greetings,
Victor
You're putting words in my mouth, Brand. Not cool.
I use the term "art" only very casually in my own writings, and rarely. To say I use it as a verbal tactic toward an agenda is mistaken.
I do have a viewpoint about the evolution of the activity we're talking about, but have seen no point in bringing it up on-line. I'll chat about it in-person, like I did at GenCon. It's more of a description of what I think is happening with or without me, though - not a goal toward which I'm trying to push people or make happen. And "art" isn't a term I use when talking about it, again, because it's a hot-button term which usually switches mouths on and brains off.
For whatever it's worth, my inclinations about the term mirror yours. But I strongly object to how you've characterized me and my ideas.
You just said in about half a page what it took Kant about 500 pages to say...He goes into huge and complicated logical fortresses of why this is the case, and so you can rest assured that you're walking with good company.
Well, I don't have the justification, but still, I'm amused. :)
For myself I find the definition problematic. What about cars? Can a car be a work of art even though it is meant to be driven?
Well, yeah. If all a car was supposed to be was a tool for getting around, we could have (more or less) aerodynamic boxes on wheels, and the only differences any car makers would talk about would be things like gas mileage. The fact that a lot of car marketing rests on matters of style proves that car design contains art along with its other considerations (like gas mileage).
And doesn't this give power and value to the people who have the money/position to produce things that have no tangible value?
I'm not sure I get what you mean by that, so I don't know. Also, things can be functional and artistic, I think; e.g. a Scandinavian colorwork sweater (forgive me, I'm knitting a lot lately, so it's on my mind), which is both a garment and art. The way it's constructed to get the various colors also causes the end product to be warmer. But if all we wanted was the warm, we could do the construction with two strands of yarn that were the same color, and the end product wouldn't be art.
However, you still find that RPGs can lead to art, so we're good. ;)
More to the point, I think that RPGs usually lead to art. As soon as you say, "What would be in character here?" or "I'd like to talk about $THEME" or anything like that, you've got art. It's just not necessarily good art. :)
Carrie,
Cool, I see where you're at. 's all good.
Victor,
You're probably right. However, so damn few people read this blog that I don't think that it will have any widescale impact on the world one way or another, so I don't worry about it.
Ron,
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Especially as I wasn't responding to something you actually said, but to something someone else quoted you (possibly incorrectly) as saying.
As for the rest of it, I wasn't saying that you are consciously and explicitly saying anything of one slant or another. Nor that you were actively trying to manipulate anyone. I don't think you're that guy, and never have.
What I meant is that statements like that one show a bias in the power discourse around both RPGs and art, and that using the A word can push people one way or the other. It isn't even really interesting if you said it or not -- it is interesting that people not you use the statement to push discourse one way or the other even when you aren't present (and even when it may not reflect your actual opinion). I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer and I'm sorry I ascribed motives to you rather than sticking to the discourse as an object.
If you have any interest in talking with me about what you do think is going on outside the mob-web, I will be at Gen Con this year. You could also call and talk or shit. Email me if you want my number. I'd be -vastly- interested in what you think.
Brand, I'm not sure where you heard it -- but I believe what you heard was Ron's comment on Keith Senkowski's blog, here. Better to read it in context than hear rumor about it, especially since the main part is just four words.
I agree with you in general about the discourse, though.
Brand,
I'm not talking about your comments impacting the world at large and the effectivity of using the word 'art' as a tool of power in general discourse; I'm talking about the impact posts like this will have on your personal ability to use the word art as an effective tool.
Because, you know, the next time you say something about RPGs being art and them therefore deserving recognition, readers of your blog will be thinking: "Ah, all of this is mere calculation, a sneaky attempt to try and exert power over us by carefully choosing words that have an ideological resonance in our souls. Well, I'm not falling for that - guess he shouldn't have exposed his own methods!"
Whereas if they're reading someone else saying the exact same thing, they might instead think: "Well, the use of the word is at base mere rhetoric, of course, but I'm sure he's not aware of that and is actually trying to express something deep and honest about gaming, so let's take his motives at face value."
And I'm not saying that these responses are good, but I think they may be typical. By showing that you are aware of the power structures of (all) discourse, you actually encourage people to read your own texts as mere instruments of power.
So let's do just that, with respect to the Ron Edwards attribution. >:) The reason you brought up Ron Edwards is not, the analysis might go, that you wanted to express anything about the person who goes by that name; rather, the words 'Ron Edwards' are - in these circles - so laden with hidden meaning that they are a wonderful rhetorical tool. These words do not point to a person so much as they point to the general idea of "authority / knowing what you are talking about / success / being right about RPGs / visionary/ éminence grise", and it is that complex that you wanted to employ as a tool to gain power (in this case by getting people over to your side of an argument) through discourse.
Unfortunately, in this case, the strategy clashed with and was defeated by the ideology of authorship, as expressed by the above conversation between you and Ron. Oh well.
I'll shut up about this now.
Victor,
I'm a sneaky rhetocial type. Unfortunatly I'm also basically honest. These two things don't always go well together.
And your analysis of the Ron situation is pretty solid. The one real mistake that I made was that I attributed the motives of the rhetorical stance to the person being used by the stance, and so fell into the domain of authorship. Had I retained my clarity on the discourse as object, that wouldn't have happened.
But yea, I'm not really sure how this has to do with art and RPGs anymore....
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home