Historically, the term “digital error” is often associated with noise, or with the

noise genre. Mark Nunes, for example, sees noise as the primary manifestation of
an error:

Error gives expression to the out of bounds of systematic control. When error
communicates, it does so as noise: abject information and aberrant signal within
an otherwise orderly system of communication.71

Based on the concept of a “glitch” – i.e.a digital error – this observation seems
initially plausible. The digital errors are in themselves naturally noisy and have a
distorted sound. But noise72 also means randomness – although this only covers part
of the potential of the digital error. Noise – or more clearly the sub-genre "digital
harsh noise” – is characterized by a digital saturation of signals. This is where both
the sonification of digital data and rebellion against a clinically clean digital system
come together. This form of expression can be understood in an activist way: it
bears both destructive traits against an intact digital world, and constructive traits,
in which a sound language is found that can be perceived as beautiful. However,
the reduction to noise, to the random and to that, which is designated as noise,
does not do justice to the digital error's potential, specifically within the postdigital
context: for it is not only destruction, deconstruction, rebellion against the digital
and the loss of control that this brings about, but rather, it is mostly an effect that
clearly points to a system. In this, not only the accidentally added value of an error
can be seen, but also its potential as an artistic tool, as also described by Mark
Nunes:

Errors are underappreciated and underutilized in their ability to reveal technology

around us. By painting a picture of how certain technologies facilitate certain
mistakes, one can better show how technology mediates. By revealing errors, scholars
and activists can reveal previously invisible technologies and their effects more
generally. Errors can reveal technologies and their power and can do so in ways
that users of technologies confront daily and understand intimately.73

2.2.6 Visualization
“Post-digitality” is to be understood as a shift, which is situated after digitalization.
It encompasses numerous approaches and ways of thinking, all of which are based
on an increasingly digitalized world. The social omnipresence of digitality provides
the basis for several observations, all of which are linked to the visibility of digital
media and technologies. Although some theories originate from the visual disciplines,
and interface theory is also primarily anchored in the visual, it is nevertheless a
comprehensive – not only visually tangible – phenomenon. Disclosure of digitality
71 Nunes, Mark: ‘Error, Noise, and Potential: The Outside of Purpose’, in: Error: Glitch, Noise, and Jam in
New Media Cultures Mark Nunes, New York: Continuum, 2011, p.3.
72 In the original text, both “Rauschen”[noise] and “noise” are written, as both are in use in German language
73 Hill, Benjamin Mako: ‘Revealing Errors’, in: Error: Glitch, Noise, and Jam in New Media Cultures, Mark Nunes,
New York: Continuum, 2011, p.28.

37
 does not only mean that we can see it with our eyes, but rather that it is revealed:
making it experienceable, perceptible and understandable. 74 The visibility and
invisibility of the digital are the central elements in the postdigital world, regardless
of whether the devices disappear behind facades or through miniaturization, GUI
surfaces conceal or hide the content, a digital view is trained on the analogue,
or the physical world increasingly obeys the logic of the algorithm. In a world
permeated by digital content, the conscious perception of these elements is no
longer a matter of course. Theoretical research or artistic practice on post-digitality
attempts to take this fact into account by thematizing, revealing and making this
interplay perceptible. A number of new artistic practices and aesthetic currents
consequently emerge around the theme of the visibility of digitality and calculation.
The compositional possibilities resulting from this will be presented in Chapter 4.
The so-called “new aesthetic” is an aesthetic emerging from post-digitality. It is
based on the phenomena and observations described above and already forms a
bridge to the aesthetic practice described in the following. This current is described
in Chapter 2.4. Before this, the parallel spread of the internet and associated social
influence will be discussed, described by the term “post-internet”.

2.3 Post Internet

Closely linked to the postdigital turn is the phenomenon of “post-internet”. Similar
to the context of post-digitality, this perspective is based on the assumption that
the internet, as a phenomenon, is not complete or no longer in existence, but rather,
has spread and established itself so widely that a large part of cultural and social
components are significantly and irreversibly shaped by it. Analogous to the term
“postdigital”, this does not mean a perspective or aesthetics following the epoch
of the internet: rather, it is intended to draw attention to the changes in the way we
view and interact with it. For this reason, Guthrie Lonergan (for example) prefers
the term “internet-aware”. 75 76 “Internet-aware” accordingly describes the fact that
today, perception and interaction take place in the awareness of the existence of
the internet. This could be interpreted as meaning that today, in the Western world,
internet knowledge and its cultural implications can be assumed as being standard.
It is therefore no longer an optional way of thinking or a volitional tool: this way of
thinking tends to assume that the internet's practices and forms of representation
are so well established that they are already firmly rooted within us. Marisa Olson
and Gene McHugh have called the influence or the changed perspective that this
engenders “post-internet”.77 78

74 In the German text, the phrase “sichtbar machen” [to make visible] is used.
75 Cornell, Lauren and Halter, Ed: Hard Reboot: An Introduction To Mass Effect,
Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2015, p.183.
76 Droitcour, Brian : Why I Hate Post-Internet Art (2014).
online: https://culturetwo.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/why-i-hate-post-internet-art/ (Retrieved 1.12.2017)
77 Olson, Marisa: POSTINTERNET: Art After the Internet.,
online: https://www.academia.edu/26348232/POSTINTERNET_Art_After_the_Internet (Retrieved 20.7.2019).
78 McHugh, Gene:Post-Internet, Brescia: Link Editions, 2011, p.123.

38
 As early as 1964, Marshall McLuhan predicted the “global village” 79 80 and in so
doing, was already predicting a process that became increasingly widespread at
the beginning of the twenty-first century. Gene McHugh postulates that the internet
is indivisibly linked to life – and is no longer a separate island. 81 As described above,
the distinction between online and offline today is basically historical. Using the
internet, dialling in is no longer an active process – one is actually constantly online
unless one chooses not to be. Not only has personal access become increasingly
omnipresent, but embedding this in every kind of technical device, service and
infrastructure is increasingly establishing itself as a normal state of affairs.

2.3.1 Implications
With the integration of the internet into almost all areas of human life, various
parameters of cultural life have changed significantly. These effects are initially
based on all the characteristics and implications of the digital. The phenomenon of
“post-internet” is thus based on the characteristics of the digital and extends them
by network-specific components. Other starting points here are factors such as
calculability, rasterization, interface logic, black box components and screen focus.
The consequences of the changed perspective, the transition into the invisible and
the imprint of the interface are also present and relevant. But the internet has a
whole range of other implications that go beyond pure digitalization. The network
character is obviously at the centre. As a result, new forms of communication for
data exchange will initially emerge in a very basic way. On the technical – but also
the content – level, the internet offers a decentralized and, initially, autonomous
infrastructure. Positive aspects here include the opportunity for knowledge
exchange, the democratization 82 of tools and information and low-threshold access
to means of production and software solutions. The community idea and the joint
solving of problems in forums and open-source contexts reflect the idealistic side
of the internet. On the one hand, positive characteristics such as cooperation,
communication, community and equal opportunities can be observed here. With
the internet’s “coming of age” – likewise to be seen analogously to the develop-
ment of the digital into the postdigital – various internet components have also
changed from an often optimistic origin to a negative side. Capitalist and power-
driven corporations and states have now transformed large parts of the net into a
supervised system with a capitalist orientation, as Alexander Galloway, for example,
describes:

79 McLuhan, Marshall: Die Gutenberg-Galaxis [ The Gutenberg Galaxy ], Toronto: Toronto Press, 1962, pp.21,31ff.
80 “Today, after more than a century of electric technology, we have extended our central nervous system itself in a
global embrace, abolishing both space and time as far as our planet is concerned.”
McLuhan, Marshall: Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Berkeley: Ginko Press, 1964 , p.100.
81 “What we mean when we say ‘Internet’ became not a thing in the world to escape into, but rather the world one
sought escape from… sigh… It became the place where business was conducted, and bills were paid. It became the
place where people tracked you down.”
McHugh, Gene: Post-Internet, Brescia: Link Editions, 2011, p.123.
82 Taylor, T. D.: Strange Sounds: Music, Technology and Culture, New York: Routledge, 2001, pp.3ff.

39