'Post-digital, once understood as a critical reflection of “digital” aesthetic immaterialism, now describes the messy and paradoxical condition of art and media after digital technology revolutions. “Post-digital” neither recognizes the distinction between “old” and “new” media, nor ideological affirmation of the one or the other. It merges “old” and “new”, often applying network cultural experimentation to analog technologies which it re-investigates and re-uses.'
Why "post-"? The term "post-digital" partakes of a rhetoric of rupture, suggesting a break, a time after. But after what exactly? In an age when we need more engagement with history, not less, and when a profoundly ideological obsession with novelty and innovation is everywhere around us, does the very formulation of this term not mimic a logic we would do better to challenge? To not recognise the distinctions between "old" and "new" media is to wilfully blind oneself to the pernicious and accelerating logics of novelty and obsolescence that govern media technologies today – as well as the economic, ecological, and social costs that accompany them.
Living 'Post-Digital' could be understood as living in a preemptive moment. Where anticipated future behaviour affects the way things are acted out in the present. Predictive technology seeks to break down our understood structure of time, where one action is the consequence of of another in chronological sequence. In the preemptive moment algorithms are of greater influence on our decisions. Whether that be shopping on Amazon or the PreCrime style systems are being used to identify future crime hotspots before the crimes have even happen. To say no to these highly personalised and specific streams of data goes only to make them stronger. And in the increasing strength of these system the future begins to increasingly inform the present time.