I spent one evening binging the entirety of every -core and -punk label on the Aesthetics wiki, so I understand the sentiment here. I think you’re directionally on to something, but I think “replacing subcultures” is a bit too strong of a thesis; it seems to me that aesthetics are sub-subcultures, or maybe ‘nanocultures’ if you want a trendy word.
Reading this, another thing that occurs to me is how important it for young people to have a cultural space that's somewhat separate from the world of adults--one protected by a barrier that's either caused by lack of knowledge (i.e. the culture is hidden) or lack of interest (i.e. the culture is visible but adults don't value it or take it seriously and sometimes react viscerally against it(.
Viewed from that angle the invisibility and incomprehensibility of internet culture is probably just us being adults and them being young, exactly the way it has been for decades before today. Culture hasn't vanished. The new wave is just being enacted slightly outside the view of watchful adults the way it always has been, while the adults lament about how the things they loved don't seem to be valued by the youth any more.
I'm gonna put on my curmudgeon hat now. The argument is that microtrends are good actually, or at least not bad and have not supplanted personality. The evidence is that the Japanese had microtrends 15 years ago, a quick strawmanning of the opposite view, pointing out that newer subcultures are basically fandoms or cults of personality (still bad IMO), oh also the algorithm is not all powerful so there is still some capacity for user agency (agree on that point). But overall I don't find it persuasive.
Not at all and my apologies if something about the writing was unclear.
The argument is that while these trends cycle in and out rapidly, they're being mistaken as a replacement for subculture. Part of what contributes to this is the way they're reported on, and part of why they're reported on that way is because the news cycle is fast.
What MIGHT be a community or subculture is the group of people who observe *all* of these trends, but not each individual trend in and of itself. Subcultures -- more or less-- as we know them still exist, and they're not these flash in the pan aesthetics or micro-trends. We just don't clock them as subcultures. A) Because a lot of them are digitally anchored, and B) because we discount fandom-based subcultures, because a lot of people still don't understand how fandom works.
For example, BAP's followers compose a subculture and meet the definition of one. So do listeners of podcasts like Chapo Traphouse, or Cumtown (as much as we may like to clown on these programs). So do fans of k-pop and Taylor Swift. So do anime fans (like k-pop, they probably make up many different smaller subcultures). And so on.
Internet has dissolved the macro culture and gives smaller and smaller subcultures opportunity to exist without media/market. The move away from growth driven algorithms to siloing niche algorithms only furthered this. Chattification. Bill Clinton may have been the first black President, but trump is the first poaster. God forbid we get a real one
Good piece. I remember all the critics freaking out over Vaporwave. What it misses though is a response to one of the points it makes at the start: "To have a culture-wide obsession with “aesthetics” indicates a culture that’s fixated on collecting, curating, and buying. Young people aren’t engaging with culture on a level that’s any more challenging than buying items that meet particular criteria or, worse, saving images that meet specific criteria, posting them online, and affixing a label to them. This description of youth culture is hardly distinguishable from the machine-like process of semantic tagging".
Thank you. You're right -- I should have framed that differently. Because that does seem true. It's a fandom culture. We also remix. But it still brings people together.
I think in this sense “aesthetic” is pretty much the same thing as “personal branding”. My issue is that success in a given field hinges largely on nailing the aesthetics, not achieving actual excellence in the field. And even if you are a person who cares deeply about something, and wants to pursue excellence in it on those terms, there is no path to success that doesn’t involve playing this game on some level.
Not at all, this is based on my experience in music. However there are still areas of music that are untouched, there’s a lot of niche genres and “scenes” that still care about artistry, but youll be making less money than the person on tik tok.
I’ve noticed this with cooking as well. Cooking influencers will have millions of followers, really making them something of a “celebrity chef”, when it’s just a really hot person making chicken quesadillas. Before to become famous for your cooking, you had to cut your teeth in the industry for years and have a successful background in fine dining or whatever. The role of “celebrity chef” was reserved for those who really gave a shit about cooking first.
Yeah it's weird. This is something that really disturbs me. Everyone is pressured to sell out or commodify themselves. I used to be very into the idea of personal branding back in 2010, but it really messed with my head. The way it changes your sense of self. Even if you find success, you're now beholden to performing your brand to keep it going. Rebecca Jennings piece for Vox, "Everyone's a Sellout Now" speaks to this.
It makes me question the whole paradigm of making money. Since by and large, money motivates you to do things you wouldn't already do. And what people spend money on is largely on illusions, buying into a promise, or aspirational benefits. Usually to fill a void or temporarily relieve a sense of insecurity. Manipulated by branding and marketing. The whole paradigm is busted.
The internet is not a place. We live an embodied existence. Arguments that "places" on the internet can be just as meaningful as reality are simply just cope, as the kids say.
I agree in that I don't think the internet serves as a "third place" the way clubs, bars, or the malls do. I think a lot of the loneliness in our society stems from the loss of the third place.
Yes, one can have a very active social life online but I don't believe it quite fulfills the human need for interaction the way real, in-person connections do.
I do understand. That's why I pity instead of hate.
It is much harder to understand and meaningfully interact with the real world and embodied others than it is to understand the internet and its massively simplified representations of users.
Far more effort is required in reality...and that is a problem for many people. The internet is all they are comfortable with, and so they convince themselves that it is equivalent.
I have been thinking about a related issue for some time. Is the dearth in physical third places driven by a reduction in demand as much as the ever increasing costs of supplying them?
The old theories of third places often emphasized that there was a low (or no) cost associated with existing in them. Whatever you think of the quality of the substitute, the internet most certainly is one. And one that is dramatically less expensive (in time and knowledge) to use. And certainly some of the low cost comes from the comfortable ease of switching from screen to screen.
As an extension, going on a (physical) date with someone must be much scarier to someone who has not had much practice existing in meatspace. More than anxiety, the biggest concern I have with the young spending too much time on screens is that they are not practicing existing in real life and forever reducing their cost of doing so.
One thing I notice is that online aesthetics tend to be pretty separate from experience. If someone goes full cottagecore and actually lives on a farm, then it doesn't seem like most people are bothered by that. On the other hand, I remember those tumblr soft grunge pictures where there were photographs of parties with black balloons floated to the ceiling and people lighting roses on fire. But, what even were these parties? How many soft grunge parties actually happened?
Aesthetics come from a snapshot of sensory reality. Or they come from an abstract representative of reality that can express lived experience better than a literal representation. In that sense, some Internet subcultures are just trying to express the strange, cerebral nature of Internet experience, which can be pretty interesting. But trying to express an embodied culture, like living on the prairie, without engaging with it, will probably always feel kind of aesthetically hollow.
I think the "internet as astral plane" theory applies to this. Since the internet is a disembodied place, it's closer to the mental or imaginal realms. The aesthetics are closer representations to archetypal patterns in the human experience. Vibes if you will. Something like cottagecore is closer to the spiritual essence than the physical thing, which includes labor, toil, pain, suffering. Things that are true about physical life on Earth and which people want to escape from.
The internet itself is not the astral plane, but is like a canvas where we express the astral plane onto. The mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects into text and media. It can then be categorized, filtered, and sorted and voted on. What rises to the top are usually things that reflect a deeper truth about ourselves in a very concise way.
That's a great way to put it! It's like the astral plane focuses in on certain aspects of human experience — abstract, semantic, visual, rapid — and narrows in on the depth of those aspects of experience.
You might be interested in what I wrote about this here: https://www.machinesseekingconnections.com/thoughts/clvdqoxow0002me0f6mswv51k
I call it phantom communities which is a reference to phantom limbs.
I spent one evening binging the entirety of every -core and -punk label on the Aesthetics wiki, so I understand the sentiment here. I think you’re directionally on to something, but I think “replacing subcultures” is a bit too strong of a thesis; it seems to me that aesthetics are sub-subcultures, or maybe ‘nanocultures’ if you want a trendy word.
So, my sense is that being drawn to aesthetics itself = the subculture, if that makes sense
Reading this, another thing that occurs to me is how important it for young people to have a cultural space that's somewhat separate from the world of adults--one protected by a barrier that's either caused by lack of knowledge (i.e. the culture is hidden) or lack of interest (i.e. the culture is visible but adults don't value it or take it seriously and sometimes react viscerally against it(.
Viewed from that angle the invisibility and incomprehensibility of internet culture is probably just us being adults and them being young, exactly the way it has been for decades before today. Culture hasn't vanished. The new wave is just being enacted slightly outside the view of watchful adults the way it always has been, while the adults lament about how the things they loved don't seem to be valued by the youth any more.
I'm gonna put on my curmudgeon hat now. The argument is that microtrends are good actually, or at least not bad and have not supplanted personality. The evidence is that the Japanese had microtrends 15 years ago, a quick strawmanning of the opposite view, pointing out that newer subcultures are basically fandoms or cults of personality (still bad IMO), oh also the algorithm is not all powerful so there is still some capacity for user agency (agree on that point). But overall I don't find it persuasive.
Not at all and my apologies if something about the writing was unclear.
The argument is that while these trends cycle in and out rapidly, they're being mistaken as a replacement for subculture. Part of what contributes to this is the way they're reported on, and part of why they're reported on that way is because the news cycle is fast.
What MIGHT be a community or subculture is the group of people who observe *all* of these trends, but not each individual trend in and of itself. Subcultures -- more or less-- as we know them still exist, and they're not these flash in the pan aesthetics or micro-trends. We just don't clock them as subcultures. A) Because a lot of them are digitally anchored, and B) because we discount fandom-based subcultures, because a lot of people still don't understand how fandom works.
For example, BAP's followers compose a subculture and meet the definition of one. So do listeners of podcasts like Chapo Traphouse, or Cumtown (as much as we may like to clown on these programs). So do fans of k-pop and Taylor Swift. So do anime fans (like k-pop, they probably make up many different smaller subcultures). And so on.
Rachel Haywire gets this. She’s using aesthetic styles to spread metapolitics.
https://culturalfuturist.substack.com
I’m also somebody who’s into aesthetics. Anglofuturism is an aesthetic movement at its core.
Internet has dissolved the macro culture and gives smaller and smaller subcultures opportunity to exist without media/market. The move away from growth driven algorithms to siloing niche algorithms only furthered this. Chattification. Bill Clinton may have been the first black President, but trump is the first poaster. God forbid we get a real one
Good piece. I remember all the critics freaking out over Vaporwave. What it misses though is a response to one of the points it makes at the start: "To have a culture-wide obsession with “aesthetics” indicates a culture that’s fixated on collecting, curating, and buying. Young people aren’t engaging with culture on a level that’s any more challenging than buying items that meet particular criteria or, worse, saving images that meet specific criteria, posting them online, and affixing a label to them. This description of youth culture is hardly distinguishable from the machine-like process of semantic tagging".
Thank you. You're right -- I should have framed that differently. Because that does seem true. It's a fandom culture. We also remix. But it still brings people together.
I was talking to my girlfriend about this post and she said that "there are no more subcultures, only brands."
You know, I disagree! On the one hand, brands really do pilfer what subcultures emerge, but on the other hand, we underestimate what exists.
That's a fair point Kat! Authentic subcultures still exist, but it feels like they are often obscured by corporate imitations.
I think in this sense “aesthetic” is pretty much the same thing as “personal branding”. My issue is that success in a given field hinges largely on nailing the aesthetics, not achieving actual excellence in the field. And even if you are a person who cares deeply about something, and wants to pursue excellence in it on those terms, there is no path to success that doesn’t involve playing this game on some level.
I agree. Are you familiar with Rebecca Jennings or Rachael Kay Albers work on the subject?
Not at all, this is based on my experience in music. However there are still areas of music that are untouched, there’s a lot of niche genres and “scenes” that still care about artistry, but youll be making less money than the person on tik tok.
I’ve noticed this with cooking as well. Cooking influencers will have millions of followers, really making them something of a “celebrity chef”, when it’s just a really hot person making chicken quesadillas. Before to become famous for your cooking, you had to cut your teeth in the industry for years and have a successful background in fine dining or whatever. The role of “celebrity chef” was reserved for those who really gave a shit about cooking first.
Yeah it's weird. This is something that really disturbs me. Everyone is pressured to sell out or commodify themselves. I used to be very into the idea of personal branding back in 2010, but it really messed with my head. The way it changes your sense of self. Even if you find success, you're now beholden to performing your brand to keep it going. Rebecca Jennings piece for Vox, "Everyone's a Sellout Now" speaks to this.
It makes me question the whole paradigm of making money. Since by and large, money motivates you to do things you wouldn't already do. And what people spend money on is largely on illusions, buying into a promise, or aspirational benefits. Usually to fill a void or temporarily relieve a sense of insecurity. Manipulated by branding and marketing. The whole paradigm is busted.
The internet is not a place. We live an embodied existence. Arguments that "places" on the internet can be just as meaningful as reality are simply just cope, as the kids say.
I agree in that I don't think the internet serves as a "third place" the way clubs, bars, or the malls do. I think a lot of the loneliness in our society stems from the loss of the third place.
Yes, one can have a very active social life online but I don't believe it quite fulfills the human need for interaction the way real, in-person connections do.
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it a cope, Sleazy E.
I do understand. That's why I pity instead of hate.
It is much harder to understand and meaningfully interact with the real world and embodied others than it is to understand the internet and its massively simplified representations of users.
Far more effort is required in reality...and that is a problem for many people. The internet is all they are comfortable with, and so they convince themselves that it is equivalent.
I have been thinking about a related issue for some time. Is the dearth in physical third places driven by a reduction in demand as much as the ever increasing costs of supplying them?
The old theories of third places often emphasized that there was a low (or no) cost associated with existing in them. Whatever you think of the quality of the substitute, the internet most certainly is one. And one that is dramatically less expensive (in time and knowledge) to use. And certainly some of the low cost comes from the comfortable ease of switching from screen to screen.
As an extension, going on a (physical) date with someone must be much scarier to someone who has not had much practice existing in meatspace. More than anxiety, the biggest concern I have with the young spending too much time on screens is that they are not practicing existing in real life and forever reducing their cost of doing so.
I don't think you do, honestly. And I don't mean this in a condescending way. You can sleepwalk digitally and physically. But neither is a given.
One thing I notice is that online aesthetics tend to be pretty separate from experience. If someone goes full cottagecore and actually lives on a farm, then it doesn't seem like most people are bothered by that. On the other hand, I remember those tumblr soft grunge pictures where there were photographs of parties with black balloons floated to the ceiling and people lighting roses on fire. But, what even were these parties? How many soft grunge parties actually happened?
Aesthetics come from a snapshot of sensory reality. Or they come from an abstract representative of reality that can express lived experience better than a literal representation. In that sense, some Internet subcultures are just trying to express the strange, cerebral nature of Internet experience, which can be pretty interesting. But trying to express an embodied culture, like living on the prairie, without engaging with it, will probably always feel kind of aesthetically hollow.
agree about the growing gap between affinity and embodied experience. Two things though
1) the internet creates a type of experience, maybe imaginary?
2) I think this was relevant pre online world- ie punks buying clothes that merely looked DIY but weren’t really
I think the "internet as astral plane" theory applies to this. Since the internet is a disembodied place, it's closer to the mental or imaginal realms. The aesthetics are closer representations to archetypal patterns in the human experience. Vibes if you will. Something like cottagecore is closer to the spiritual essence than the physical thing, which includes labor, toil, pain, suffering. Things that are true about physical life on Earth and which people want to escape from.
The internet itself is not the astral plane, but is like a canvas where we express the astral plane onto. The mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects into text and media. It can then be categorized, filtered, and sorted and voted on. What rises to the top are usually things that reflect a deeper truth about ourselves in a very concise way.
That's a great way to put it! It's like the astral plane focuses in on certain aspects of human experience — abstract, semantic, visual, rapid — and narrows in on the depth of those aspects of experience.
>Something like cottagecore is closer to the spiritual essence
Totally agree. I wrote a longform piece about this for Fairer Disputations, which I'll repost here:
https://fairerdisputations.org/its-a-vibe-how-sexual-orientation-lost-the-sex/
Excellent piece. I like when you explore the spiritual dimension to things. If you ever want collab and lean into that area more I'd love to help.
Sure! I saw your email btw, just been slammed today. I'll respond tonight.
Meanwhile what you have described in this essay is just a more extreme fragmented extension of the zombified phenomenon described in this essay:
http://www.awakeninthedream.com articles/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers-comes-to-life
Humankind is now in a state of extreme fragmentation.
Should have been
http://www.awakeninthedream.com/articles/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers-comes-to-life