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.

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.