Space Invaders/Sept. 11 art exhibit stirs controversy [update]
An art installation that features Space Invaders aliens attacking an image of the World Trade Center is beginning to draw ire from the mainstream media. Kotaku was the first site to call attention to the exhibit, which was part of a larger tribute to the classic game's 30th anniversary at the Leipzig Games Convention. A Games Convention press release calls the installation an "an articulated and critical commentary about the current war strategy" and "a social tale that can be related to historical tales without losing its poetic power." The New York Daily News ran with a decidedly different take, though, calling the exhibit a "disgrace" in one headline and featuring outraged reactions from families of 9/11 attack victims, who called the game "distasteful" and "disgusting."
The story has been slowly leaking into the mainstream from there. News wire UPI basically echoed the Post piece, while Fox News posted a surprisingly balanced take on the controversy. International wire AFP's story, meanwhile, doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the exhibit at all. So is this piece a triumph or a travesty? Watch the video and decide for yourself.
Update: Taito just dropped a very serious statement into our inbox. Read it here.
The story has been slowly leaking into the mainstream from there. News wire UPI basically echoed the Post piece, while Fox News posted a surprisingly balanced take on the controversy. International wire AFP's story, meanwhile, doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the exhibit at all. So is this piece a triumph or a travesty? Watch the video and decide for yourself.
Update: Taito just dropped a very serious statement into our inbox. Read it here.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Wiinterfang @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:36PM
Art is suppose to be controversial.
Zertoss @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:45PM
Well, it's supposed to evoke emotions in the viewer. Being controversial just seems to be the easiest way to do that.
Yourself @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:55PM
And believe him^ about controversy, he's the man with a bound nude Peach as his avatar.
The Fatass of Kickassness @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:06PM
This is controversy for the sake of controversy and absolutely nothing else. I appreciate art when the idea behind the art isn't awful, but come on. Fucking tower jumpers? I ain't gonna say it ain't art but it sure as hell ain't tasteful, or any good for that matter. The artist's explanation made me laugh... supposed to be a commentary regarding the current war strategy? Bullshit, it's just something the dude made to get his name out there.
This is disrespectful. This is tasteless. His explanation was lose through and through. Fuck this 'art', fuck this dude.
BananaBoat @ Aug 22nd 2008 3:17PM
I have no problem saying that this isn't art. This is a promotional stunt, and it's not going to work.
This guy will be a starving "artist" for the rest of his days.
Mr.ESC @ Aug 22nd 2008 3:41PM
“Well, it's supposed to evoke emotions in the viewer”.
Then if I paint myself flipping the bird I'm an artist? Woah I'm glad I never visit modern art museums (If that garbage is considered art, the last time I visited a modern museum of arts the pieces there were pretty damn bad I mean what a waste of paint and Metal)
William @ Aug 25th 2008 12:30AM
I don't even think it's controversial. Ever since "Operation Desert Storm" there have been hundreds of articles about how war and killing are becoming too abstracted, too much like a video game.
And of course, the piece also plays at the absolute good / evil rhetoric that surrounded 9/11.
Pimliconite @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:36PM
For every tit, a tat:
http://www.muslimmassacre.com/
Delgado @ Aug 22nd 2008 2:03PM
Interesting that his hair is both blond and brunette, so as to include all of the white people (except redheads?)
john doe @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:37PM
Stay Classy Liberals.
Xoviet chiK @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:48PM
Kisses *muah* XOXOXOXOXO
Love,
Karl Marx
ice~ @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:46PM
Art?? You call that mediocre, offensive piece of *baloney* art?
First of all it was a French idiot who created that piece of crap, and coming from someone who lives in New York, and like 5 minutes away from ground zero, im getting really sick of people using 9/11 to get acknowledged. There was no reason to make the backdrop the twin towers, absolutely no reason.......
DigTheDoug @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:15PM
A French!!! HOW DARE THEY!!
As someone from somewhere other than NY, I'm really sick of people using "I'm from NY" as an attempt to lend credibility to their opinions.
Go be a bigot somewhere else please.
theturtle363 @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:18PM
i dont think he's being a bigot so much as he's upset that someone who isnt even from America mocking, as he sees it, a terrible tragedy.
Haggard @ Aug 22nd 2008 2:14PM
The guy's hardly mocking 9/11. He's not making his point very well, but he does have one about US foreign policy.
nsdcx @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:31PM
@ Haggard
Of course he isn't mocking 9/11. That was airplanes and this is space invaders. And he googled "building" and the first one happened to be the World Trade Center.
And you know, 9/11 was a good example of US foreign policy. Let's see... US soil, attack without cause, suicide bombers, kill thousands of innocent people. Yeah, that seems to be the US's fault. Damn that foreign policy.
/end sarcasm
/start political rant
Fuck you liberals who think that the US foreign policy is horrible. I think it was totally justified that we went after Al-Qaeda. We went into Afghanistan looking for Osama, intel wrongly said he might be in Iraq, along with WMDs. Saddam wouldn't let the UN check for WMDs. US, along with several other countries, invades Iraq. Saddam... well you know what happened with him. Now they're in the middle of a civil war and the US is trying to be a (somewhat-biased) middle man. Flame me all you want, but thank God I live in America and I believe whatever the fuck I want.
/end political rant
Cox Attack @ Aug 23rd 2008 7:54PM
AT nsdcx:
You're a complete utter fool. Even if you are in support of going after Al Qaeda(Even most Democrats were) the way it was handled was atrocious.
We could have had OSAMA. Seriously! Wait, we wanted to Afghani rebels(lol) to capture him as to decrease chances of American casualties. Too bad they cut him a deal where he had 3 days to leave. After that we went after Iraq which the British, a country that has pretty good history of ruling shit(besides India and of course the country I just mentioned) couldn't fucking control. It was an awful idea.
Let us go back a little more and back to Afghanistan. All their weapons, their training, their training facilities are what we supplied them with to fight the Russians. We sure didn't care when it was them being attacked! Especially since we were supplying the good times!
I could also mention the massive amounts of money being made in Iraq by people in power but I'll keep those "crazy" liberal views to myself.
The point is that these people just want to be left a fucking lone. And I don't blame them. If Britain didn't think it'd be a great fucking idea to combine three groups of people that hate each other, everything for the most part would be peaches and cream(except Israel but that's another issue). We gave these people the power to defend themselves and now they are. Our best bet is to leave. You really can't be a middle man to groups of people that won't budge on their personal beliefs. You should check out the book Ghost Wars. It's a great balanced view of the war and the history behind it.
And here in lies the problem with this country. Neo-Cons(I don't want to throw in my level headed different opinion, but reasonable conservatives in with the disastrous Bush Administration) are now lashing out at "liberals" because they're all confused. We were wrong. And no one wants to admit it.
As for this sad excuse for art, it sucks. It's tasteless and it completely sucks. It's not doing anything other than trying to be "edgy" and "thought provoking". Sorry french guy, you can get back to making my sandwich now.
McWeen @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:48PM
Anyone ever see the photoshop of Mario shooting fireballs at the WTC to knock it down?
Zertoss @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:56PM
Katrina was also one of Mario's fireballs.
The internet is a cruel mistress.
Anthony Perez @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:57PM
That I have to see.
In regards to this particular piece, I'm not typically one for political correctness and it's not "terrible" because no damage is being done to the buildings, it's still quite distasteful.
I live in New York and that day was devastating, and though I despise the way the Bush administration has used it as a scapegoat in order to evoke fear in the country and push a more personal political agenda in the middle east waged under false pretenses at the wrong enemy, doing the 9/11 thing still isn't kosher.
Lorem @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:20PM
I'd like to see him make fun of warsaw.
Yourself @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:56PM
It sounds like it makes a lot less sense than this.
Yourself @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:57PM
Ok the new reply system is definitely worse.
Lorem @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:57PM
Why was that even used as a backdrop? It's not art.
He's playing a game for fuck sakes.
Yourself @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:59PM
I'm unclear what exactly is in poor taste here. It's a commentary on an event. Do people not remember 9/11, and that's why it's offensive, because it reminds them of something horrible?
ice~ @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:09PM
It's offensive because the man is using it in a ridiculous way, it's not merely commenting on an event, it's a man taking advantage of a horrific event that he knows would offend the people most effected by it, just so he can be recognized by the media, and it's working isn't it? I saw this on the news too. Btw, being reminded of 9/11 isn't offensive, imo, but this game isn't paying respect to the victims, it isn't saying "we will never forget", it isn't being respectful whatsoever, i mean look, the towers even have what seems to be health...
Yourself @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:15PM
If you're implying that the artist is using controversy to garner attention or further his own name, it'd be interesting to note that no news report I've seen has mentioned him/her at all.
I fail to see what's so ridiculous.
He hasn't in any way devalued the tragedy or the victims, but merely pointed out a societal spin on it which in and of itself should be so offensive. We need to get over following every mention of death with "and I'm sorry that it happened, because they were very good people, and it was a terrible event, and let us bow our heads in respect, and also have a fundraiser, and the only reason I did this was as a tribute to lost life."
zmog @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:19PM
"it's a man taking advantage of a horrific event"
kind of like what george bush does...
Vidikron (FU) @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:25PM
You've got to be kidding. The artist claims it's a commentary on Bush and the US war strategy, but where the hell do you get that out of this? It's a blatant attempt to stir up controversy for sake of the attention and nothing more. You have to be pretty damn dense to not see that.
Yourself @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:32PM
I can't believe people are honestly missing what this is supposed to mean. I'll give you a hint: aliens.
I don't necessarily agree with the political statement, but saying that there isn't one is being blinded by opinion.
ice~ @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:33PM
lol zmog, oh and @yourself, i'm just going to stop, you obviously don't understand, all i'll say is let's put this work of art up at the metropolitan museum of art, it's so beautiful! Leonardo DaVinci? Picasso? Michaelangelo? who the hell are they? This guy is a real artist.
Vidikron (FU) @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:37PM
And, again, how does that relate to Bush or the war strategy? This piece of "art" comes no where near to providing the commentary the "artist" claims it does. And including building jumpers? Are you fucking kidding me? How can that be seen as anything other than controversy for the sake of controversy?
Yourself @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:46PM
My reply to Vidikron and ice is somewhere down below. The reply system is having a horrendous time today, and I really don't feel like dealing with it anymore. This issue is so straightforward and simple that I can't see what else there is to say, though. "Space invaders" destroyed the WTC, right?
Vidikron (FU) @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:52PM
The point you seem to missing or simply ignoring is that the artist claims this is a commentary on the war strategy and Bush. You explanations below having absolutely nothing to do with either of those. And, again, if the this guy wasn't simply in it for the controversy why bother including building jumpers?
343 Guilty Fart @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:56PM
Hast du den neuen Slogan von American Airlines gehoert? "Wir fliegen Sie direkt ins Büro"
J @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:05PM
343,
Kerl, es wird völlig in Verwirrung gebracht.
Blazur @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:00PM
I could have predicted that.
Sandman2k7 @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:11PM
has anyone else seen tribute.wmv
JJ @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:12PM
its offensive, yourself, because its tasteless and in no way promotes any kind of political statement, he's just using the twin towers as a way to get acknowledged due to its like if someone made some kind of "political statement" by mocking people who died at pearl harbor back int he 50's, those that died in wars, etc etc.
Its just controversy for controversies sake, its not deep political statement, It's cheap advertising
belden @ Aug 22nd 2008 2:41PM
"mocking people who died at pearl harbor back int he 50's"
What's wrong with that? I mean, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941. I feel I have every right to mock someone who died there in the 1950's because they were over a decade too late getting in on the action and clearly an idiot. Besides which, I thought that once Hollywood had taken a historical event and made a ridiculous movie out of it, it was fair game.
Wiinterfang @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:16PM
This is art, those kind of comments are recycle across history.
with every new idea and are only appreciated years later, but I have to give you guys that, this is disrespectful but I respect his idea anyway.
Mr.ESC @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:02PM
Eh what is his idea anyway? Seriously.
The Space Invaders exhibit, okay I see the space invaders and I see the WTC now did I miss that game where you defend NY from the space invaders? Aren’t Vidjea games supposed to be fun I mean this is out of context, who knows why he did it If you ask me he did it to call attention and guess what it worked.
Also if they were attacking the white house now that would have made sense.
Give that man his “Attention whore” badge and move on.
Mr.ESC @ Aug 22nd 2008 4:15PM
Now I feel silly woah after watching the video that was actually pretty cool I mean not the 9 11 but you know using your hands to shoot was cool.
Too bad he used a bad setting.
Nigeria @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:20PM
Seeing as it's an installation it's hard to speak on whatever impact it may have. It is hard to form a genuine opinion on the piece based on second hand information. But as for the subject matter, I really don't see a problem with it.
Haven't there been countless books and movies released about the attacks? And I've seen art exhibitions and panel discussions being advertised in the city from time to time. Is it still too soon for some people?
Vidikron (FU) @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:35PM
I don't think it's really a matter of being "too soon" or that it shouldn't be discussed. Because, your right, there has been plenty of discussion about the event in all sorts of media. I think the debate is more about the actually presentation. IMO, it's highly tasteless and doesn't come anywhere near making the commentary the "artist" claims it does. I mean, building jumpers!? Seriously?
Xoviet chiK @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:20PM
New Headline: "Art, it's Subjective *See Comments*"
arsohn @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:22PM
There is much more effective "critical" and "controversial" art out there about the war etc., this is just stupid and lazy.
theturtle363 @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:22PM
I never have and probably never will, understand art. It seems like someone can do anything and call it art, like that Argentinian ( maybe he was Peruvian? ) guy who chained a dog so he could never reach food and put it on display.
eipxen @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:25PM
I can sort of see the intention; maybe it's trying to say we're oversimplifying our "enemy" or that we have too simplified a view of the situation or that we don't understand the attackers that well... although I thought our problem was more about how we're going about fighting than how well we understand the taliban
...I think it hits too close to home not by bringing it up, but by how its treating the situation, but maybe that's the point then, that some people don't view the attacks with enough seriousness or weight?
if the point was to get us to talk, then job well done, but if he was trying to get famous, I personally wont remember his name for long, I think
Bass Masterson @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:26PM
I love how whenever anything is 'controversial', it immediately provokes some ridiculous positive response from the 'art' crowd.
How, exactly, is this "an articulated and critical commentary about the current war strategy"? It's Space Invaders eating a building.
Oh, and by the way, we're winning the war.
Art is not 'supposed to be controversial', art sometimes is controversial and sometimes it's just bullshit intended to get shock value, like your uncle dropping his pants in the middle of the room. That's shocking. That's controversial. And it's an equally 'articulated and critical commentary about the current war strategy'.