(I'll apologize in advance if this seems "ranty". I may have focused too much on question #4 rather than your whole post.)

The issue with any "art" debate, no matter how you try to "hit the reset button", is that art itself doesn't have a consistent, concrete meaning. There's a certain sliminess where we never properly define art, but still go on to talk about what's "artistic" or "is X or Y art?" With no concern for a logical foundation, we can then go on and just say whatever we like is art without having to prove we are not literally speaking nonsense (as in not sensed, something that hasn't or cannot be sensed).

The truth is how I see it, "Art" doesn't really mean anything by itself, it's merely a marketing/status-imbuing label that has managed to perpetuate itself by sheer reputation and utility (the desire to be "important"). There was once a time when there was no use to separate art from entertainment and/or beauty, no need for "art"; there was only the good, the skillful, the beautiful, etc. We should ask ourselves why has this need manifested and why it has become the most cherished aspect of media? I would argue "art" has taken a form that isn't so different from the way people have used and still use concepts like "holiness" or "divine". It attempts to add a vague "spirituality" to the mundane. Water vs. holy water is like cool comic book art vs. a canvas of randomly scattered paint blots. The vagueness is key, which is why increasingly during the last century (when this really became an issue), art in the "purest"/high-class fashion (painting, sculpting) became wildly ironic, self-destructive, random, and altogether vulgar and weird attention-grabbing - the highest form of "clickbait". With this vagueness, you create a new way to propagate your fame and success, one perhaps not based on beauty or skill. It's no coincidence that this kind of status-farming art is overly concerned with "authorship" and "authenticity", in other words "the brand" (but the brand being a person or a few people).

But where does that leave us? Well, to get anywhere I guess we have to define "art" and this gets to what I really wanted to talk about. Attempting to define art, with all its bloated status, is basically saying "this is what (good) media should do", it's an aggressive action to instill your ideals. Make no mistake, it's a bare-knuckle fight over the spoils, which is why the sly tactic I describe in the first paragraph is so desirable.

And what should art "do"? It mainly comes down to two forces: Escapism vs. Propaganda. Every piece of media/art is inherently both (to varying extents), but we want to decide which matters most. This is the heart of the drama over Owens (or the hundred other times similar feelings has arise, I really think Owens alone is barely worth commenting on)

Escapism: Art is an artifice we pretend is true through immersion (effectively, ignoring reality). What matters is Stimulation/titillation/entertainment (same thing). The "fake world" takes priority. Art as an experience.

Propaganda: Art is used to disseminate information and influence people (intentionally or unintentionally). Instead, "Messages", "meaning". The "outside world" takes priority. Art as a tool.

I have to reiterate, "art" is always both. We believe this lie that the pixels on the screen or the vibrations in the air are more than the sum of their parts and we are also truly influenced by anything we experience, even the "false experiences". At the same time, we can't just say to ourselves these aspects are of equal value. Even if you try, you'll let it slip, if only because we are subconsciously absorbing biased information (again, look at the first paragraph). Consider how we use terms like "artsy", for example; it's an insult that simultaneously debases the user and their ideals, because it grants higher status to their opponent.

The point is that whether you like it or not, this is a fight that simply must occur. Consider how we have fields of studies (soft sciences) which intersect with art in ways that is only concerned with their propaganda role (i.e., how they affect people, that is, how they affect the world). This means those who closely tied to these fields will certainly see videogames (or movies), in that respect. A lot of what we consider "high criticism" or are told to consider "high criticism" (as opposed to the "lowly" game review) is mainly the side effect of the rise of sociology and sociological movements (e.g., feminism) and how they interact with games. It's a matter of a gained and unavoidable perspective.

If it wasn't already clear, let me state that I definitely fall towards the side of "escapism". It's probably best not to say why, since I want to focus on and clarify the debate, not so much just add to it. Maybe in a follow-up if this gets any attention.

I think it's fair to say Owen falls strongly on the side of propaganda. Indeed, most of the time when phrases like "games being held back" are said, it mainly saying that they are being held back in their role to spread ideas and influence people ("expression"). On a tangent, we can say the same for the phrase "grow up", which adorns the title of his book. You see, "maturity" finds itself in a very similar boat as "art". This is because "maturity" is more or less saying "this is what the model person/citizen/human is" (once you step outside the biological meaning). So what is a "mature videogame" (ignoring that videogames don't go through the biological process "age" or "growth)? Well, if you believe (especially, strongly believe) in an ideology where "giving back" and influencing the world "positively" is the "meaning of life", then of course videogames that serve as "positive" propaganda is of utmost importance and value. (Anyone who values the escapism aspect over the utility of propaganda is bound to be selfish in some way or another; they are pleasure seekers.)

Now, to get back on point, it makes sense that "gameplay" would generally be looked as unfavorable by him. He places great importance on the idea of "getting the message across", where any mechanic not in service of the idea (the "story", which is mainly a misnomer) is just pointless noise. So, why do people gravely disagree with him, almost out of reflex? It's simple: the "gameplay", all those noisy mechanics, are not necessarily noise; they may just instead be in service of the experience. The experience is more than just a message, it's a full exposure to stimuli in the form of mechanics and aesthetics. Life is an experience, it has no message. In games more so than other mediums, we have find and embrace smaller, shorter, and simpler "lives" (or "worlds"), moments of a lesser existence , that are highly contrived to make us feel certain things. "Unrealistic" shivs are a level of artifice we may easily accept, because they contribute to the overall "feeling". No one is betraying themselves or hurting their medium by choosing the experience over the message, they just have priorities toward escapism. Criticisms on how the "shivs" mechanic could be better (fit the world better, for more immersion, a better illusion) are not to be dismissed outright (and they are not dismissed outright), but they would be downright trivial in appearance compared to the outrageous claims Owens and people him like to make about the apparently horrible state of the medium.

The messages he puts importance in are in fact still there (and can still be "obtained"). What is a message, after all? It's the meaning, based on personal experiences, your brain lays onto things after you've "felt" them through nervous system. Every game, even the ones we told to be believe are "dumb", is bound to have thousands of possible messages and maybe we can combine them to create some of sort of expansive ideological message. But the question one focused on messages may ask: Is the message useful? (And then: Do I like the message? What if it it's nationalistic, or violent, or sexist?!) Why "useful"? Because tools are defined by their usefulness. "Art as Propaganda" is the outlook which looks at videogames as an opportunity to "express" an idea and ultimately affect the "outside world". But "Art as Escapism" makes these "useful ideas" play a background role, where living through things is more important than being influenced by them.

I'll conclude this here, since I managed to lay the gist of what I wanted to say. I apologize if this wasn't the right place to say it. I just really wanted to get it off my chest.