I've read the author's comments on the game, and I think I understand the point of the game. I don't believe that the author had a specific idea that he wanted to convey. I think that this a social experiment of sorts: if a person tells you that there is hidden meaning in a portrait, you will look until you believe you have found it. On the other hand, if a person tells you that there is no point to the portrait, you will dismiss it and move on with your life.
The author wanted to see your reactions to the game. He had a decent game idea, and gave it a form that could be seen in many different ways.
Granted, the general theme seems obvious to someone who studies this type of stuff all the time (Nature of conflict, all been said before.), but the game I saw was gray, murky, vague, pointless.
People have expressed their points of view in games far better than the people who made this game did. They used all of the tools they could. The developers of this? They neglected, completely, some of the tools they had. If they had a point, they would have needed to use them.