Response to Hovagimyan

I'm not entirely sure I understand Hovagimyan's assertion about the movement into a "'post media' information environment." I disagree with his assertion that "we are moving away from recording," unless I'm taking it too literally. I think, as a society, we are moving towards recording more and more useless things (and uploading them to youtube).
The only idea I had that vaguely supports Hovagimyan's notion is the realization that all forms of media are becoming digitized. We are scanning newspapers, publishing e-books, making movies on digital cameras, and recording sound digitally. Therefore, all media is becoming stored as data, thus homogenizing the various types of art we have. However, this suggests that all art is constantly moving forward. For better or for worse, this is untrue. Not all media is made digitally, nor do I believe there will be a day when that is true. Also, the preservation of the past (newspapers, movies, pictures) by digitization is not an exact copy. The original will always be better than the digital version.
Hovagimyan makes a comment about generative art, music and theater (something I had to look up and came to understand through wikipedia and the video below). I don't believe that generative art is the future of all art. Computers open up a new form of expression, like celluloid film opened up photography to the masses and allowed for motion pictures to be produced. However, the creation of film did not render paint useless, it simply, as Hovagimyan notes, forced painting to become more abstract. We don't remember the 20th century as a century void of painters, but of a period rich in different movements within the realm of painting. Similarly, we won't remember the 21st century solely for the role of computers in art (the exception being the digitization of other art forms that I just discussed).

Here is a video I watched that helped me understand generative art: