Can Dnd be art?

So, if you guys haven't figured it out by now, I am a HUGE nerd (Gasp!), and right now, I am sitting down, watching a bunch of my friends playing a popular nerd game called Dungeons and Dragons, and since I haven't done my last blog post my mind was thinking about Art and Philosophy. Suddenly, it hit me: Is dungeons and dragons art? In my opinion, I would definitely view this as art.  Dungeons and dragons (DnD) is a dice based role playing game where players create and play as characters in a fantasy setting and adventure throughout the world. The world itself is created by one person called the Dungeon Master, who not only creates the world, but the people, story-lines, and interacts with the players by telling them the result of their actions in this world. There are many reasons why this can be considered art. The first is that obviously, the world the DM (dungeon master) creates. The world paints a realistic picture in the players mind and can provoke emotions and thoughts as effectively as any theatrical performance can. The second is the players and how they interact. The players, when they play as their characters, with new personalities, and new point of views.  These characters can become just as vivid or real as any character portrayed in a novel or theatrical performance, and people can get emotionally attached to their characters just as much as any reader would get attached to their favorites novels. Thirdly, the story can hold as much symbolism or insights into the nature of the universe as any piece of artwork can. The players are constantly forced to see the harsh reality of the world they live in, have to struggle between good and evil, and have to have their beliefs challenged often in a good world. It can be just as provocative as art.

   If a simple game like this can be art, then what things done by humans could NOT be classified by art.

Response to Duncans question: Why do people need to be told what to think about art in the first place, why do we need critics in our newspapers and online?

A critic's role is wide and varied, It can range from interpreting a piece of artwork to reviewing a new book. I will just get to the point in the matter here. Sometimes people are lazy and impatient. Sometimes people just don't have the time or don't want to spend the time reading a book that might potentially be bad, or go see a movie that sucks. People use critics as a means of convenience, to sort of get a judge of the artform before seeing it. It is not so much as critics telling people what to think, but the people asking for the critics opinion and that piece of artwork.  People can also be very unobservant at times, and when viewing a piece of art, a critics view of the art can help the viewer understand the art easier as well.  Critics who tell people 'this is what you have to think,' in my opinion, are not critics.

Is it okay for a critic to try to correct ones interpretation of the art piece is dead wrong? Like a painting of a butterfly, if a person thinks that butterfly represents eternal torment from Hell, would a critic be allowed to say that the persons belief is wrong?

The devils music.

Can art be bad? Not quality-wise, but ethical-wise? I don't really know what brought this question on, but being a big history and theology buff, I learned that in the middle ages the catholic church censored art that in their opinion, was 'sinful.' They had certain tones on the instrument that one was forbidden to play because they were considered 'the devil's notes,' and even recently in the 1950's people were speaking out against rock and roll music claiming that it was sinful and corrupting.  There were also burnings of 'evil' books, and sacrilegious paintings and sculptures. But in my mind, unless one is a catholic, one should not have a problem with any artwork. So, can art truly be 'evil'? even to a nonreligious person? And is there a difference between 'sinful' art and 'evil' art?

Denises question: what are the qualities upon which we form our standard of art?

Wow, Denises question just opened up a whole can of worms. Philosophers have  devoted Books as to what qualities can constitute art. Some of these are: Style, technique, skill, Artists renown, symbolism, inner meanings, color scheme, cultural values, themes, motives, medium of artwork, talent, contrast, beauty, emotion, and so many more.  And plus, the worst part that unlike chocolate cake (see Denise's Chocolate cake example), Art can can come in so many different styles, medium, or designs and is much more complicated due to it having multiple meanings. So in conclusion, at the moment, no one will ever know.

Will someone ever know?

Strowlercon and philosophy

So, for those who don't know, I went to a convention over Columbus day weekend called Strowlercon (amazing convention, anyone that likes unorthodox and very fun entertainment I HIGHLY recommend you go next year).   Anyways, There were a lot of great folk/mythological/historical singers there, they took old legends and mythologies and turned them into song. This reminded me a bit of what Tolstoy was talking about how art is used to convey emotions, messages and history.  As someone who isn't very artistically inclined, I have to say that I underestimated Tolstoy's view of art and was perplexed on why he would think art like music and paintings held a greater value than words and could express history and emotions better than characters. After heading to Strowlercon I now realize how foolish I was. There were so many musicians there that preserved ancient songs from the middle ages, they weaved musical stories of the old mythologies and histories of olden time. The emotions and the knowledge that was flooding towards me was amazing and I never truly realised the power song had. I could understand the stories and the attitude of the person or event that was described with perfect clarity and I can definitely see why Tolstoy thought why anything that does this constitutes art.
   But then again, I also still believe that this is a side effect of art and not the real definition of art. I think that it might enhance the aesthetic quality of a piece, but emotions do not create artwork. If there is a way to enhance artwork that is.
  Actually, all this is starting to make me wonder though, besides style, medium, and emotions, what else can affect the Aesthetic properties of art?

Response to Denise's Question

As a lazy member of the creative community, I feel that Denis'es question holds a lot of merit. I believe that societal behaviors have a HUGE influence on artwork. Using Denise's example of laziness and my own experience with it on my artwork, I can personally vouch that it has a huge effect on me. But unlike laziness breaching into my art, like Denise would believe, I would believe that what laziness actually does is prevent my artwork from taking off because I am so lazy that I don't have the motivation to actually write any poetry or fiction.  I believe  that societal behaviors don't influence our art really like Denise views though, but it influences one's attitude towards our art, Other societal behaviors like individualism, self entitlement, pride, patriotism, or other cultural emotions have effects on one's perception as well.  Pride for example (something that I unfortunately have too much of sometimes) effects me in the sense that when I create a story or poem, I often view it with a proud eye and ignore critics who could help me improve my artwork, or patriotism might influence what I decide to write about. It is our approach to our art that changes, not the actual style.
  What kind of behaviors would have the biggest impact on our view of art?

Philosophy and books

I love books with a burning passion that probably borders somewhat into obsession and I believe that through books, ideas, thoughts, and new points of view can be spread almost anywhere.  Now, during my Art and philosophy class, I have started to realize that books actually contain two types of philosophies in them and they are presented in different ways.
The first type of philosophy that I see that takes place in books is the aesthetics.  Every book is a work of art that creates a whole world in the readers mind, and provokes emotions in the reader just as well, if not, better than any other type of art, such as music. Just look at the amazing world J.K. Rowling produced. Everybody knows that fictional world. In fact, it was so descriptive that there is now a Harry Potter theme park in Florida.
The second type of philosophy I see in novels isn't as prevalent as the first type, and in fact, some novels lack this type altogether. This is the philosophy that is lain in the words themselves. Many novels have morals at the end on how to live an ethical life, or it goes deep within theology, or the main protagonist of the novel subscribes to a certain set of beliefs. Such authors like Plato, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand use this type of inlaid philosophy to get their ideas on how the world is out there, through a piece of fiction, and I love reading these ideas and trying to figure out the undertones the story has to offer. And I most definitely view this as an incredibly good thing to have in any story.
Question: Are there other pieces of art that can have another form of philosophy inlaid within them?