Post Media Aesthetics

From reading the article, I found the author's view of the perception of art somewhat strange. While it does seems as though the author is somehow involved in post-digital media, his initial commentary is very unflattering of the wave of new media. Maybe it's just my perception of the writing, but he appears to be displeased with the exponentially increasing categories of art, and it's as though he wants art to return back to the basics of painting, photography, sculpture, etc. Then a few pages later, he accepts that there are many new categories, but he wants people to embrace their individuality. And all this time he creates his own label for the new categories and tries to shelve them himself.

Like Ryan said in his post, I think the author is overcomplicating a very simple matter. If he preaches so much about people seeing art first hand and interpreting its place in the art world on their own, then he should allow them to decide whether or not they even want to listen to him. Not to sound rude, but people may just want to appreciate art as it is, instead of worrying over its naming process. I call my digital illustrations my "paintings," but some people don't understand why I call them that when I didn't pick up a physical paintbrush in order to create it. That's fine with me, though: I don't get flustered and argue over what the correct terminology is for digital art versus traditional art, I simply move on and thank the viewers for even noticing what I created.

To be honest, articles like this make my head hurt, because I wish artists these days could be less concerned about art in relation to society, and more concerned with creating the work itself. Like this woman:

So passionate...

(PS: don't take this video seriously)