Missunderstanding of the New media artist: Today so-called "Media, and New media artist" is not artist generally, they have no specific study at the university. They are not unique, most of them are in the section of system engineering. In regards to the society, they are, how to use the technology. They are not creators, no one can study specific physics and mathematics, as well as philosophy (no sociology, no linguistics, no biology). Generally in the society, they are as an instructor who uses technology, not development, to create or do something (no function), and is called phantasy. But they are phantasy, that is the limited idea.
Very few of them, who are self-taught, could be an artist, but an object of something to the future, not system.
Because the study at the university is oriented to the social system in each country.
There are many critics toward "Meda, New Media art" by the scientists' worldwide wide today because there is strictly moral and it requires to study philosophy in the study of science, that contrast to the "Meda, New Media art", and artists in the "Meda, New Media art" active toward "freedom of expression" in arts, using the technology.
But in fact, "Meda, New Media art", they don't know much about the sciense. Thereby the scientists mentioned "they should more study profoundly.", not only using the technology. This level of art generally would organize the research towards an artistic model (imitation) and its objective(s) as "evidence" of fact, but it is not the fact of anything (so-called as an artefact) today. It does not make sense, rather in the direction of today's bias as a fashion. They (So-called New media artists) are at the level of national science institutions (their funding and they are the future national elite artist, that aims how to use the technology. -> most of in the topic of weapons, control to humans and animals, torture), but their artistic content is imitation e.n.g. Nam June Paik is an ontological godfather (technology as high art) in Media art, in contrast with others, and not natural.
In another dynamic of art today, it is the work of art by the scientists literary, I would like to introduce this dimension of work of art, and they are "queer", also privately. Their (doctor in natural science) work of art is unique and literary. I met one of them in person (in a collective/group, it was a workshop), is a scientist and an artist, but literary (uniqueness and originate), and I am exploring it in art and humanity essentially and profoundly.
In the case of visual arts, literary means conceptual art (not the metaphysical painting) generally, but there are many variations. Her artistc topic on trans-gender connects with her scientific study in xenology, through her life-experience, it makes her work of art uniqueness.
What I explore in the topic of transversal aesthetics through my life-experience, e.g. a performance project with an autism girl.
In fact, from the xenological aspect, of I think about gene evolution, it is not wondering, about what I am thinking, probably there is existing "new seed" on the earth, it will create a new civilisation in the next 100.000 years later, it would be called "after human-age". Art is fiction, but thereby fiction itself does not make any sense.