Concerning Media Sensate

Appropriation which can be seen throughout Duchamp, Bacon and Velasquez, Giorgione to Manet, the Book of Kells and the Greeks to the Romans, is the viscosity of ideas.

A focus in its direct attribute reflects a transnational capitalist polity identifiable through ownership. In contrast to these ideals, one questions the direct ownership to idea or symbol which influences identity. If ones vision of self is referenced through symbolic ideas and those ideas are considered property of another, then who owns oneself when identity becomes defined through that vision.

Bricoleur of cultural symbolism,
Nostalgia for historical pertinance,
Inventory for identity, value and myth.

Media sensate and technology have always resided side by side. One cannot exist without the other. When photography substituted painting as visual registration, the technology of perspectivism became embedded in the hardware of optic machinery. Through a short deviation, subject matter within painting explored the physical impact of industrialization upon the human psyche, while media sensate as a whole began to utilize the new technology and its processes as forms of expression. Primitive works used cultural conceptions expressed through the most advance technology available at the time of their creation. Today we have an interpretation of high-technology which doesn’t seem to fit our old definitions of a transparent media sensate experience. High-technology has become predominant in the dialogue between psyche and hardware. Science as a shamanistic fetish has made hardware a scintillating amulet. Those blinking machines project our intellect and superiority, enthralling our ego as the harbingers to utopian civility.
Transparency of that hardware throughout everyday life supersedes the dilemma of aura which is receptive to the sensitivity of cultural baggage in a form of nostalgia. Culturally conceptual referents, once interpreted as idolatrous, blend amongst rituals of transnational exchange.
Modes of exchange and interaction translate through technology to the cultural initiate.
In a consented reality, the object of creation and medium through which it is construed are contextualized temporally through culture. Object shown outside a particular social contextualization, would have a diverse impact, fundamentally altering its definition of ‘breath’.
If aura is the ‘life’ (breath) given to a particular object through its cultural context, wouldn’t then the aura of a completely visual digital form be at the moment of its conception. The cultural state embedded as all elements coalesced to form the media experience. Aura is not subversive to the cultural impediment. That is why physical replicas can be made to try and trick the individual into a false contextualization while distinguishable by highly sensitive ‘technicians’. So the totality of the medium and the cultural it is embedded at the moment becomes it’s aura, a concept, which does not rely upon a physicality. In formats such as the digital, the expression is no longer centered upon the object, nor the medium itself which reproduces a visuality of object referring to cultural context. These are the auras of quantum teleportation. The reconstruction of presence without apparent mediation.
Digital technology evokes aura through reference which is a mix of transparency and hypermedia.
Once indoctrinated, conceptual mythology bridges the near/far relation of aura which serves to disengage the temporal impediment of culture and illude to an ubiquitous state.
Because of digital medium’s non-physicality and vicissitudinous hardware, its ubiquitous state is immediate without being confined to it. The digital aura the effect of participation whose temporality is momentary.

Material apparatus as the impetus of idea, linking thought through form.
Socially generated without subject.
Althusser reverberates.

Are we over developing our perception of perception? Enhancing the definition of third person? How else would one anticipate the prey in a hunt. How do generative algorithms resolve a state? How does sensate manifest?

We need to ask ourselves what is more important.. The process of execution of a sensate or its impression upon one who engages it. If the end result is no more different then that of objective visuality and bares similar likeness to pre-established sensate while the processes involved in their development are distinct to their experience, then one must consider that the whole of the work does not rely solely upon objective visuality as its interpretive dialogue. Thus the elements involved speak of certain aspects distinct to the time and mode of creation regarding the sensate and needed to be described. What distinguishes these displays is that they are one element in the part of a discussion which serves to invite dialogue. They are the artifacts of experiment, curiosities which reflect an event given rise from an idea which serves to perpetuate itself through these resulting forms.

The interface of Media Sensate creates a ritual in which seeing is a rite of passage that may quickly become denied. The interaction with this technology of aesthetics, upon which we depend for our understanding of what is before us, provokes us to pose a question: “Is the perception of what we look upon our choice or is it an interpretation of the dimension of Media Sensate interface?”
Our agreement of what is to be interpreted before us validates this ritual while its disassociation detaches us. This space speaks of its history without uttering a word. The moment of our gaze rests upon beings of permanence, encapsulated into a timeless display. Through the mind and eyes we are invited to receive possibilities from whispers within a cradle of perpendicular planes.
Its language deciphered through history. A rite initiated from the time of the Chauvet caves. Here, instead of facing rock lighted by a flickering fire, we are illuminated through rectangles and neon. Their cores the same, both thought space and viewing space speak a language in the purity of its congregation.

Contemporary works are inventions opposed to the unreal forms of representation
Systematic elements of a discipline

Can there be an aesthetic experience within the creation and appreciation of beauty without object?

Superposition is the paradoxical incompatibility between interpretation and observation.
Dominated by a scientific ‘mythology’, discourse and concern stem from a scientific perceptualism. Issues regarding ‘aura of originals’ reflect the heroic feats of quantum teleportation.

Media’s ability to simulate older media unlike a doctrine of Animism:
An uncanny result from the contradictions between what we think we know and what we perceive at a particular moment.