Thursday, August 28, 2008

Art Invades, Art is Defeated

Last week at the Games Convention, in Leipzig, Germany, artist Douglas Edric Stanley showed an interactive art installation titled Invaders! The piece was basically a motion controlled version of Taito’s Space Invaders but with a 9/11 twist as the invaders are attacking the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

Invaders!

From the press release for the Space Invaders 30th anniversary art show (for which the piece was designed) via Kotaku:

The World Trade Center attacks mark a deep cut in our recent history that is still being processed. The French-American artist Douglas Edric Stanley has found an unusual – though obvious – metaphor with his work “Invaders!”, which is based on the 1978 arcade original. In his interactive large installation, the players must prevent the catastrophe by controlling the well- known cannon at the lower screen border with their bodies and firing it using arm movements. Like the original, this trial is ultimately unsuccessful, thus creating an articulated and critical commentary about the current war strategy. In this regard, Douglas Edric Stanley sees Space Invaders as “a social tale that can be related to historical tales without losing its poetic power” (D.E. Stanley).

Once the piece went up at the Games Convention it immediately hit the gaming press’s radar. Various gaming blogs reported on it with some mixed responses and even some confusion. Ad the piece gathered more and more attention it should be noted that an increasingly negative response was coming out of America. Three days later, Stanley contacted the organizers of the convention with instructions to shut the exhibit down.

On his website he writes:

“After three days of a steady downward spiral in public discussion of the piece, I have just given my agreement to the organizers of the Leipzig Games Convention to simply turn off the installation Invaders! While I realize the dangerous precedent of allowing the lowest common denominator dictate what is and is not a valid form of expression, unfortunately the current tone has totally obfuscated the original aims of the piece. While I take full responsibility for the uncomfortable ambiguity of certain aspects of this work, it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy’s sake, and unfortunately, this is what the piece has now become. The American response to this work has been, frankly, immature, and lacking the sophistication and consideration that other parts of the world have so far shown the work. Contrary to previous reports, I am an American, and it saddens me that we as a people remain so profoundly unable to process this event outside of some obscure, but tacitly understood, criteria of purely anesthetized artistic representation. Due to these profound misunderstandings, I simply feel that from an artistic point of view, the work has lost the ability to have any valuable impact, poetic or otherwise. I have not been pressured by the Leipziger Messe, nor by the Computerspiele Museum in this decision — to the contrary, they have offered their support in defending the right of artists to speak freely, and in whatever context they may choose.”

As an American I find this to be very embarrassing.
As a gamer I find this to be very confusing.

For years the gaming community has dealt with the medium being over looked in terms of its artistic merit. Whether it’s Roger Ebert saying that games can’t be considered “high art” or Barak Obama saying it’s a waste of time games have always been criticized differently from all other forms of entertainment media. I think most of this has to do with the medium’s beginnings as more of a “toy” than say film or books could really be considered. But the format has changed so tremendously in the past 30 years that it really is time to look beyond that. As I’ve stated in previous discussions, the gamers have grown with the format so as the audience matures its only natural for the medium to mature as well.

Here’s where my confusion lies. In the same forums where people have complained and argued for video games right to be considered an art form are responses to Invaders! so ignorant, misguided, and hypocritical that it honestly makes me a little ashamed to be sharing the same internet as these people. Do we want video games to be regarded as an art form or not? We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

So here we are: presented and confronted by a piece of art work created as an artistic statement that just so happens to use video games as not only an inspiration but also as part of its construction and we, gamers of all people, slash at the artist’s throat. It’s one thing to say something meaningful as a critique whether positive or negative but most of the feedback is more along the lines of just calling it "dumb" and "ugly." Those words mean next to nothing in a greater context. They don't say anything. I’m convinced now more than ever that America as a whole just really doesn't give a shit about art as art. Someone (I can’t seem to locate the source) had been quoted saying "why would aliens attack the Twin Towers? That doesn't make any sense." If that's honestly what you think this piece is about then you have no business even commenting on it.

I don’t think it’s a secret that when it comes to fine art and culture, America takes a very different approach than most of the rest of the world. Just look at all the times dung paintings of religious figures or dissected farm animals made into sculptural installations have brought attention to the art world. Why is it that every single time a piece of art work that could have been/was/is important is focused on by American mainstream media its in a negative context? Do we ask for it? Are we scared of it? They say animals attack out of fear.

So what is it then about video games that makes us go back and forth so swiftly and clumsily on what it can and can’t address as art? What is it okay for a game to deal with and what is not? Why is a game about World War II with hundreds of Japanese and other nations being slaughtered considered meaningless entertainment while a game about another tragic event is considered tasteless and offensive? Why can I kill a Little Sister in BioShock with out feeling guilty but I have to keep my copy of Super Columbine Massacre RPG! a secret? Is it because Columbine and 9/11 happened on American soil? What makes our lives so much more meaningful than those of other nations? Our dirt is comprised of the same minerals and has soaked up the same blood as anywhere else in the world. We can’t say that its because this is a serious subject where as most games deal with cosmic princes and falling blocks. Call of Duty, specifically CoD4, is all about capturing the gritty brutality of war. I’d say that’s pretty serious.

While I may not be able to provide the answers to these questions I think its incredibly important not to forget things like this. I'm sad to see an artist have to take down his work because of some kicking baby screams from the same people who have championed for such a piece. I don't mean to trivialize the losses people and the country have suffered as a result of 9/11 but at the same time, isn't this the type of hypocritical, uncultured bullshit that got us attacked in the first place? The first amendment has rarely meant less.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Sorry it's taken so long to update. Commitment will come. I promise.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Micro review: the multiplayer on Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution on the DS is surprisingly good.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

funny first post for a blog called Donut Ghost House.

earlier this week, Nintendo president, Satoru Iwata, publicly apologized for the company's E3 presser's seeming ignorance of "core" gamers.

this whole situation makes me sad more than anything. ever since i was a child and played my very first game of the original Mega Man on my neighbor-friend's NES and made my folks buy me my own, i've felt like the fact that i purchased their consoles and games and any number of asinine accessories all this time meant more to them than this statement makes me realize. maybe it's naive or selfish or emo.

"core" gamers used to be the teat Nintendo suckled to grow and survive. now we're the nagging old mom who moved in down the street and comes over with out calling.

if it wasn't for all the people who loved them and were dedicated to them through the last three decades would they even be in the position they are now? they're making more money than god!

the reason they killed the competition in the 80's and 90's is because a section of the consumer market was dedicated to the industry. of those people a number became more and more dedicated to Nintendo because for one reason or another they stood out. there was a charm about them.

as pretty much any "core" gamer will confirm, as the industry grew, so did the people playing the games. however, i don't mean the average age of a bland cross-section of the general populous. i mean you, and me, and david from next-door when i was five-years-old. sure the roster name-by-name has changed, expanded. but essentially the point is there.

you think we were raised by games? games were raised by us!

we've been playing games all our lives and most of us have probably played more of their games and their consoles than any one single competitor. I understand the Wii has opened a wide ocean of potential for a new market and a new type of large-scale gaming crowd but Nintendo owes it to us to, at the very least, try harder to understand what we want.

it's not more Mario or Zelda. it's not nearly as hard as they think. we just want something original. new. Zelda wasn't anything before they took a risk and tried something that maybe hadn't been nearly as successful in prior attempts.

they used to understand. people liked Metroid, we got Super Metroid. we loved Super Metroid, we got Metroid Prime. people's expectations were matched and raised. they used to listen. and understand. and through that understanding they learned to innovate and created some of the most beloved series in all of video game history.

now that in this current generation they've made the decision to not compete with the likes of Sony and Microsoft but, instead, forge a new "casual" market, does that mean that has to be all they do? don't promise me something "hardcore" only to charge me to fix your fucked up controller and then show me Wii Sports 2. why isn't any of this money going to forming new teams to make new IPs and funding implementing hardware fixes like WiiMotion Plus for free to those of us who already paid for the functionality. the fact that WiiMotion has a price tag is already a slap in the face even to the new gamers. only most of them don't know enough to realize it because they can make Cooking Mama a cake faster. even another stab at Geist would be better.

i guess in short i feel as if Nintendo doesn't understand the definition of the term "core." hardcore? people who play nothing but team-based multi-player online shooters and combo based fighting games until they could kick your sorry ass to Hoboken till the cows come home...in his sleep?

wrong!

"core: ...a central and often foundational part usu. distinct from the enveloping part by a difference in nature..." -webster

Iwata's apologized. Nintendo needs to follow through.