Media Aesthetics

The term ‘new media’ must be put correctly first in order to understand media aesthetics. According to Jens Schröter ‘media aesthetics’ and ‘new media’ are closely connected, because both terms were simultaneously developed during the 1990s onwards, meanwhile the internet spread enormously. Due to Schröter research books, which mentioned ‘media aesthetics’ were all published after 1992. This means ‘new media’ and ‘media aesthetics’ correlate. Computer simulation is a significant pillar of media aesthetics’ discourse in the first half of the 1990s.

Discourse of the 1990s

Scientists felt the advent of a new aesthetic era and published writings about aesthetic agency of ‘new media’, which strongly addressed computer simulation what referred incorrectly to virtual reality (now this term is defined and used differently). Computer simulation turned from an imitative function to a productive one. Since people now interact with computer simulations from day to day this habit leads to an aesthetic turn. In Welsch words to an “aestheticization” of one’s visual awareness and one’s perception of reality. He also considers that those who work often with CAD (computer-aided design) find reality less real .

Why is modeled reality assumed to be not real? Whereas computer Simulations for instance model architecture, engines, human anatomy in order to progress the understanding and learning for future sciences. Hence simulations “are actually able to substantiate reality.” The dichotomous appearance of simulation can be attributed to obsolete simulation theories. Schröter assumes that there was a tendency of imputing a “derealization” to simulations’ ability. Thus its “creative power” is undermined rather negated. A non-aesthetic “reality” wasn’t considered anymore. The 1990s discourse discussed a wide concept called “aisthetics”. This means that ‘reality’ is full of simulations and consequently not even ‘real’, so ‘reality’ would be “artificial”. Based on the facts it’s assumable for Schröter, that technology and media perception “actually preceded any kind of epistemology”(ibid.) However, there was also an oppositional approach, which criticized the performance-centered notion of media aesthetics. According to Martin Seel (1993) he felt ‘media aesthetics’ is about media usage regarding to perceive aesthetically. He claims a clear difference between a non-aesthetic reality and aesthetic occurrences. For him it does depend on the manner of simulation, not what is simulated. Here the power of representation is determined. Its reception can be put as self-referential. This notion reflects the zeitgeist of the twentieth century. Seel arranges the adjective self-referential purposely to digital (electronic) media and enriches simulation with artistical characteristics. He calls “the possibility of digital storage” as “the first medium of new media”. This storage cannot be seen visually, it has an “immaterial code”.

This code by itself is defined as something imperceptible. On the one hand the immaterial code by itself is not able to evoke perceptible aesthetics. On the other hand, the effects of the immaterial code can do so. In conclusion media reflexivity can no longer be about uncovering the medium that actively shapes art. In conclusion the digital code cannot be defined as a medium. Instead it is “something that transposes the concept of the medium itself.” To put it in a nutshell there are two types of media aesthetics. Firstly, there is a ‘strong’ kind of media aesthetics, which acknowledges historical discontinuity, but simultaneously borders the field of aesthetics. Secondly, a ‘weak’ kind, which acknowledges aesthetic perception as something independent as well as its continuity. The ‘weak’ approach is problematic due to its oppositional components. On the one side it comprehends (during digital media start to develop) the emergence of media aesthetics with a transporting capability, which at once shapes the base of this approach. On the other side it sticks “to a traditional, modernist concept of media reflexivity”. Schröter adds a third medium kind of media aesthetics: In his opinion the world doesn’t depend on a condition of an aesthetic absolute. For him media aesthetics regards to aesthetics, aisthetics and pre-digital media. Most importantly they “become visible (and audible) once more through their transposed digital repetition.”