A space invasion of personal grief?

Whether video games can be considered art or not has never had a cut and dry answer. If art is defined as the aesthetic production of human imagination meant to encourage an emotional and intellectual response from those who look at/read/listen to it, more or less the loosest definition I can come up with for the word, then where do games fall in this equation?

That question was recently revived in very dramatic fashion at the Leipzig Games Convention in Germany, when American artist Douglas Edric Stanley produced a version of the classic 80s arcade game "Space Invaders," with players asked to protect the World Trade Center from the titular pixelated aliens trying to obliterate them. According to online descriptions, the objective is ultimately futile, as the aliens eventually take over the whole screen and the Twin Towers are destroyed. A "Support our troops" message then appears on the game over screen. The game's exhibitors at Leipzig called the piece an "articulated and critical commentary on the current war strategy." After much controversy, the game was pulled from the exhibition.

9/11 is obviously a very recent, very traumatic wound on the American (and likely global) collective psyche. Art on this subject, on any catastrophe-related subject, whether man-made or natural, is more than likely to ruffle a few feathers. Like any other artist or human being, Stanley should have the freedom to make whatever point he wants to through his art, and the fact this incident made people and media around the world sit up and take notice is an accomplishment on its own.

Furthermore, as controversial as the idea may seem, I'm not sure I can look at the piece and think to myself this artist hates freedom, or is being purposely disrespectful to the victims of the 9/11 tragedy, which are two of the more over-the-top charges that have been laid on him since the piece was unveiled. In fact, all I see is a mind trying to encourage us to think critically (by which I mean, deeply, not negatively) about how 9/11 has affected us all, how the image of the tragedy is being used by all sorts of parties for different kinds of purposes.

On the other hand, I was disappointed with Stanley's response to the more negative comments on his piece. I realize artists pour a lot of time and energy into their work and it is very difficult to "let go of your babies" and watch them get torn to shreds. Honestly though, what was he expecting? Furthermore, his sweeping condemnation of Americans as "profoundly unable to process (9/11) outside of some obscure, but tacitly understood, criteria of purely anesthetized artistic representation" whiffs uncomfortably of elitism.

In other words, since someone like Stanley has the freedom to make as controversial a piece as he did, he should respect the freedom of opinion of anyone with dissenting views on it.

As a piece of art, I think "Invaders" largely works. It definitely got both an emotional and intellectual (althought the latter was minimal) response out of its crowd, and there is definitely a message somewhere in it. Many of its detractors have been demanding the artist to explain his motivation and the meaning of the piece. Personally I don't think Stanley needs to explain himself anymore than he already did. It's not that uncommon for artists to stand behind their work and let it speak for itself, which is what was happening in this case until the demands became so loud he felt he had no choice but to write a note on his blog.

All I hope is that he keeps the more extreme condemnations out of his words the next time.