I thought "this is interesting." In the New York Times article "The XBox Auteurs," tries to make machinima look like a budding art-form. Taking characters that are fixed in a certain way, and making them do what isn't natural to their designed purpose (In this case, making violent characters non-violent and giving them a personality), is definitely a different approach to to the medium of video games. However, considering it to be "art" is a bit of a stretch. There is humor, yes, but humor needs wit and constantly changing dynamics in order to have artistic merit.
For example, the creators of Family Guy has been nominated for and has won countless Emmy and Annie awards. The one aspect of the show, however, is that they also won Emmies (sp?) for Outstanding Music and Lyrics. I don't mean to strap myself over a barrel for this show, but my point is that it has depth beyond just trying to be funny. The show, much like the Simpsons and South Park (Both of which have also won many awards for more than comical aspects) tackles issues of society out-right and with colorful, smart banter. Machinima just seems to be banter. "Red vs. Blue" came out in 2003, and to be honest, it seems to have dropped off the map. It may have pioneered a wave of Machinima, but I would be hard pressed to find anyone who a) knows that that word even means, and b) who would find it as intriguing as on of the previously mentioned cartoons.
Ok, you know when you're writing about something and then you realize that you're half wrong or completely wrong? I'm the former of the two. I can't completely discredit Machinima. It is good for a laugh, and it has inspired many to create their own short films. Hell, there's even a film festival for them now. I guess the problem I have with it is calling it "art." I see it more as just a funny take on a video game once a group of kids become bored with doing the same thing over and over again.
This begs the question as to what art actually is. Especially now, when there are so many mediums and ways to create, haw can we sift out the mundane and monotonous from the vivid and original? Can time tell? The Simpsons have been on the air for 20 years and it is still going strong. But will Red v. Blue? What about all the short sketches on College Humor?Its too early to tell, but if I my kids want the DVD box set of Rooster Teeth Productions, then I'll bite my tongue.
I have to agree with you regarding your stance that machinima is not art. Even if one defines the parameters of what what makes something "art", machinima still does not qualify. Then again, I may be biased because I do not considered abstract paintings that look like they have been made by preschoolers art, but there are people out there willing to throw away millions for these "masterpieces."
ReplyDeleteHowever, despite my problems with machinima as an art form, I do believe that red vs. blue was incredibly amusing and humorous and more than just a project by some guys bored at work. I just would not label it "art."