I should've seen this coming back when I previewed this thing in early July: The "Invaders!" installation at the Games Convention has stirred up a lot of controversy, for at least a couple of reasons, one of them not so obvious.
Firstly, an overview: this is artist Douglas Edric Stanley's work which he described as "a social narrative and related to historical narratives, without losing any of its poetic power." The installation is basically just the classic Space Invaders game with the background being of the World Trade Center (an image can be seen through the source, I'll refrain out of respect, not that I think it's exactly disrespectful).
The first thing is evidently the endeavour was produced entirely without Taito's knowledge or consent (them being the company with the rights to the game), as was the “Space Invaders: Die Jubiläumsshow!” (“Space Invaders: the Anniversary Show”) exhibition at the Computer Game Museum Berlin (a separate event). The press release reads as follows:
TAITO is seriously considering all available options-including legal actions against the infringer and, if necessary, the Games Convention exhibitor involved-in order to end this unauthorized and impermissible misuse of the Space Invaders content and to protect TAITO’s intellectual properties.
Interesting. While I do think the artist should've asked permission, it seems like it would surely not have been authorized, and then this never would have come to light. I'm on both sides of the fence, but I have to say to Stanley: what guts.
Now, understandably, people are very sensitive to such things as this, and there's the usual outraged people who've called it "distasteful" and "disgusting," these ones being related to victims of the event. If you're expecting me to slam these people, I'm not going to. I understand their position entirely, I myself would simply react differently. They are very angry though, basically citing it as a sleazy attempt for self-promotion. Would someone really use such a thing to promote themselves? It's basically you vs. America at that point.
One person from the New York Daily News article which quotes the aforementioned folk has an interesting point though, which I would like to answer. FDNY firefighter Zachary Fletcher was the one who called the thing distasteful, saying Stanley's "excuse" for the thing "sounds like bull":
"Aliens are not going to attack the World Trade Center. What reason would they attack the World Trade Center? That makes no sense at all."
This an entirely valid question, but I think that's where the art lies. And if art doesn't evoke emotions like this, it's probably not doing its job, I figure. The way I see it, it's a surreal take on a surreal event. I think it takes the very primitive and subconscious view people have of the event and those involved, and puts it in an explicit and interactive form, using something which entertained us innocently for many years as children. What contrast; who knew? And this is the point (as I see it, at least).
Stanley isn't the enemy of people like Fletcher. In fact, I'm quite confident he loves New York and humanity and America and all of these things just as much, if not more. He simply sees things through a different lens, but his heart is in the same place. I'd have hoped that years later after something like this, at least some positivity (understanding) could've come out of something so awful (and this is not to glorify anything, but I do think it is awful); hard as it is, what else is there to do? But in another sense, it's beautiful in a sad sort of way to see people still so broken about it.
‘Twilight’ Creator Stephenie Meyer Talks About ‘Breaking Dawn’ Cover Controversy And Books’ Appeal
GC ART 2008
