Anything that has happened that is different is considered new. Anything that is visual has an aesthetic. Then why in 2015 is there a movement so connected with such broad yet literal terms. May be in an image based culture that gives an equation for connecting people’s identities with what they look like (stereotypes) results in a way of thinking that considers all art with a certain image-identity to be of the same quality and meaning. But that doesn’t sit right with me.

Aesthetic is a word that often drops content from the artwork completely, but when you meet a pair of twins they aren’t the same person, even if they look like it. This results in my main issue with internet art and the uninterested-with-history; it is ruled by the comment box mentality. However, Unrealist art is based on the concept that New Aestheticians often overlook: it is not the act of making art that evaluates what art means, but it is the end result of what the art translates to a viewer that evaluates what art means. The term new aesthetic when relating to good artwork** is then misplaced and should be replaced with unrealist, because unrealism accounts for the layers of meaning that digital art encompasses. For in the grand scheme of time, new and aesthetic are not timeless words, but are limited by the literal. Using this term would be like judging books only by their covers and saying all books written at the same time are of the same genre.

*It might also be noted that computers and computer generated art have existed since the 60s so the term new aesthetic really isn’t very new at all, but is used by misguided artists stuck in what literally they are making.

Then again, sometimes I wonder if anything on the internet can be serious. But even if this is a joke, there is no punchline. But may be I don’t get it.

**Definition of “good artwork:” a unique and balanced presentation of skill and idea