Concerning Media Sensate

The act of partaking in media sensate does not justify the object as an art in mimesis. If we hold that the ‘art of images’ is mimesis, as according to Stefan Beyst, then media sensate is utilized for a multitude of means. What is important is to delineate such divisions and the intentions of their creators. Without such divisions, the meaning of titles encompassing ‘Art’ fail to be confronted astutely. The intertwining modules of a media sensate synthesis demonstrate their functional complexities and must be addressed as such. Understanding of these forms in their proper constructual frame we can begin to address their social contextualization. In this light, the plight of so many ‘subgenre’ of an apathic Art context can be ridded of their ardor to be recognized within its ranks. The break down and division of a monolithic Art structure can only liberate media sensate and its participants from such myopic tendencies. Media sensate function throughout vast divisions of image, spatial and linguistic manifestations for their dialogue to be contextualized simply within an ‘Art’ discourse. A lure of self righteousness and shamanic genius from a Euro-Western Renaissance legacy, can no longer guide the media sensate ritual, but a treatise where a media sensate establishment is deciphered.