The most interesting area for any medium, whether old or new is how users synthesize them, and in some sense "misuse" them for artistic effect. Architects build VR walk-throughs expecting that people will walk around in the rooms and look out of the windows, but some people apparently like to jump out of them as a way to blithely explore the extremes of the technology.
We know that there is an intimate connection established between new technologies and what art becomes as a result.
I like what James Bridle has done with the self-driving car as a didactic subject for art.
The new definition of an Artist now slips along with trends. The interesting thing about the New Aesthetic is that it isn't necessarily concerned with aesthetics but rather how aesthetics as an aspect of cognition, affects "artistic" behaviors. As artists give us alternate ways of seeing, new artists give us new ways of awareness of technology.
Art can't just be about decoration. Once cleverness came into the picture, pictures (aesthetics) were less interesting. Art can still be that, but hasn't been that way since Dada.
Artists like Ellsworth Kelly abstracted things seen in the world, such as shapes of windows and shapes of shadows. What we have with New Aesthetic is the new shape and shadow of inspiration, not in the real world but in networks.
Younger generations will more readily adopt new technologies because the more recent technologies are all they've ever experienced, and will fully invest in them. It takes a while for feelings of nostalgia to arise, and when it does, the common one is that analog is a superior technology. When all there was was analog, it wasn't always better. The grass is always greener on the other side of the technology fence when the new technology starts to grow weeds.
The problem lies not in the state of the technology, but the ideas it allows or disallows. It's not that one technology obviates the other; it just shifts our attention for a while. Like the thinking that one understands a book merely on its title, understanding art through its technology is ultimately misguided.
I hardly ever read an e-book if I can get a print version, or perhaps the audio version. I think a lot of people are more attracted to print now because it removes the noise of opinion. This is also why I prefer looking at framed photographs in galleries: it reduces the experience to a room, a wall and contemplation of the image in context with others in the room. I want to know as much as I can about them with the limited time viewing them.
Richard Dawkins remarked in a recent interview with Sam Harris that the success of the "The Selfish Gene" is almost entirely in its title. People appropriate it based on the word "selfish" and never really know what the book is about or what the main point is about natural selection.
If you look only at the technology (or what the technology makes possible), you can completely miss the point.
Augmented Reality will give artists new possibilities with vision and perception. Various overlays could appear projected over places, such as in an art gallery. Whereas VR attempts to replace reality, AR puts it on a scrim.
Another possibility is to use the grid as an eye-trace map, where one can choose to look and find more information, just by looking at a certain pixel or quadrant.
In this video the same art exhibited on the gallery walls is overlaid in an AR simulation.
As an artificially-intelligent artist AI (if there were such a thing) evolved a way of working, it would probably develop a natural tendency to make things in series, or at least develop daily routines. The process of learning naturally involves routines, so it would be expected that the output would be somewhat routine. But since it is a machine, humans could control it in "random mode", and see if it could/would return to its routines, and if it learned anything useful in the random mode. (A "free will" test). Artists like to experiment (do "studies") to test how something might work as a matter of routine art-making, and some of that is ultimately usable. If art is a process, then machines can do that too, but they'd have to be programmed to switch back and forth between normal and random modes, or make that switching random as well. Then we humans ask, what's the point of all the programming for the purposes of stealing our creativity in the end results. Code is creative but it's creativity in the design of tools, not art, unless the tool becomes a Readymade.