Machinima: a lion, or courage
As Johnnie Ingram indicated today, the old faithful topic of “what is machinima” has arisen again, this time over at GamerzTheatre. Rather than make yet another impassioned argument regarding the definition, I wanted to share some thoughts that came to me as I read through the various opinions being shared on mrdougan’s post.
Anyone who has talked with more than a few people about machinima has probably observed that the definition seems to be uncertain - some would say “in flux.” That is true, but what occurred to me today was that the challenge runs even deeper than a mere difference of opinion on what should appear in Webster’s. The difference of opinion runs to the very nature of what purpose the word “machinima” is expected to serve.
For some, it’s a matter of science. Machinima is like a species of a particular genus and phylum; it is a matter of taxonomy. In much the same way one would define an animal… a lion, for instance. Those who approach defining “lion” from a scientific angle are concerned with physically observable and easily identifiable characteristics that make clear it is this particular big cat: the male’s distinct mane, the shape of the bones and teeth, the whiskers, the appetite for meat, and all those other traits that make a lion a lion according to zoologists.
And for some, it’s another matter entirely. It’s a matter of philosophy. And so when asked to talk about “lion,” they tend to think in terms of what a lion represents: courage, nobility, strength, the astrological sign Leo and all the connotations that come with that… Aslan the divine lion from the C.S. Lewis novels, and so on. Now we’re not dealing with matters of fur and claws, but of symbols and ideals. Of representation.
In the same way, there are (at least) two different approaches to defining machinima, and the differences which come after each of those approaches are but secondary. Some look at a checklist of traits and try to classify. It’s made by an amateur, check. It’s rendered in a video game, check. (These are, of course, wholly and rightfully disputable examples). These are objective bases for evaluation.
And some look at what the word “machinima” conceptually represents to them, and look for congruity with those ideals about what it is supposed to represent. It didn’t require any significant work or planning, therefore it is not machinima. It isn’t good, it doesn’t elevate the artform, therefore it is not machinima. These are subjective bases for evaluation.
The two perspectives approach the word machinima in a very different fashion, because they approach language itself in a very different fashion. Much as Aristotle used language in a different way when he was talking about logic versus when he was talking about ethics.
While I’ll freely admit that my own approach slants decidedly toward an objective one - and that as much a natural bent as it is a decision - my point here isn’t to elevate one of these approaches and denigrate the other. Instead, I just wanted to throw these ideas out there as something that might be helpful to consider should you choose to step into this or any other fray regarding “What is machinima?” Understanding another’s approach to language as a precursor to engaging them in discussion/argument can prove very helpful indeed.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment... or, take it to the forum (click here)
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…”
Comment by todnyc — April 21, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
This sort of reminds me of the discussions I’ve had in various classes over the years, regarding “Is it art?”
Some ‘artists’ create ‘found objects’ — i.e. they go to a store, they buy something, and then stick it on a pedestal. A large portion of the academic art community seems to view this as art. I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but if you asked me for a straight answer, I would probably say “no, it isn’t.”
But then a lot of people don’t look at engineering as art, and I do. I can see art in a neatly wired electrical panel, or the strange constructions and devices in the steam tunnels and storm drains underneath a city. Or a beautifully written program, or an intriguingly designed circuit. There is certainly a lot of inartistic, formulaic engineering, but then there’s also cubism and the guy who put a urinal on display in a modern art museum.
I’ve sort of come to consider art as a spectrum; you can have things that are very artistic, and some that aren’t at all, but in the middle it’s hard to say that something either is art or isn’t. I don’t think any definition should extend that far. I will say, though, that I consider creativity to be an important part of art. The less creativity I see, the less artistic I tend to think a given thing is. Maybe that’s just me.
I have my own personal definition of machinima though: Video created using a real time graphics engine or its assets. By this I would say that the video posted /is/ machinima, it just isn’t very good machinima. Which is, of course, half a subjective statement in any case.
Comment by Elf — April 21, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Just to point out that the scientific process does not cast things in stone. It is a ‘process’ that is designed to get at the truth. Look at the recent definition of the word ‘planet’ that resulted in the ejection of Pluto from the set of planets orbing the sun. It’s not even really that interesting what the final definition is (and in fact it may be changed in the future). What is more interesting is the process and discussions that took place that firmly resulted in a definition for a planet being created(there really wasn’t one before) and the result that that definition had on the classification scheme (drawing Venn diagrams is fun!).
I prefer a definition of machinima that is ambiguous, not clearly defined, and likely to increase heart rates whenever it is mentioned simply because the process itself is more interesting than simply producing a standardized definition.
Besides, it’s simply easier to find ‘machinima’ when that breadbox is big enough to encompass a wider variety of material than when the definition is narrowly applied, thus limiting my choices.
Comment by bllius — April 21, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
I would have to say that the definitions of machinima will widly vary from person to person for a long time to come. Maybe everyone needs to come together and write out what makes ‘machinima’ machinima.
Comment by Sean — April 29, 2008 @ 8:41 pm