aesthetic culture

What do you think of aesthetic culture? Are they counter cultural movements with power or another symptom of our failing society? What caused the sudden rise of said culture or is it something thats always existed, but got a name? I've been noticing the rise of aesthetic culture online. Most people behind or apart of aesthetic culture like, imitate, or create certain styles and ideas. Some value the style only, saying people who like ideas are gatekeepers, and others want ideas only, making lists on what you have to read to be x. The imitators and creators catch my attention the most because they're reminiscent of old art collectives to me. They're loosely tied together groups with the goal to create art based off of one shared ideal. My second main interest is how aesthetic culture is a simulacrum of its goals. The OP pic is an example of dark academia. The followers of it want to be well read polymaths, with a focus on ancient texts, along with giving the aurora of ivy league Gothics. Pic related leans heavily into the style part, but utterly fails at achieving any knowledge or ideas. This can be seen in other parts of the culture were looking the part or doing bare minum ideas that make you look the part is valued more than ideas. The subculture is based off of 'symbols' that link to an idea, but are not the idea which means most people apart of the subculture only work towards the simulacrum of it. This can be seen in other aesthetics like cottage core Y2K core which don't try to use the groups as a way to grow or achieve something, but it's symbols to have the simulacrum of achievement. Pseud's have always exist, but aesthetic culture is the first time it's been celebrated blatantly. Following point 2 aesthetic culture is becoming the dominate counter culture. It has already started eating some movements online, the rise of fash-wave and christian larpers. I wonder what would happen once a culture that worships stylistic symbols over actual ideals will try to affect the real world. They seem completely neutered when it comes to actual efforts toward something. A real shame about dark academia because I wanted to join it before I found out it was all LARPing

I've been thinking about this a lot. I'll try to remember to leave a longer response when I have more time, but I think "aesthetics" (in the sense you're using here) are an evolution and in some cases a replacement for subculture. I believe this phenomenon is caused by the way the internet exposes the internal dynamics of alternative/fringe subculture to anyone who cares to look. As a result people can add, drop, and modify their subculture affiliations much more quickly than than they could in the past, and so the relationship between these affiliations and their personal identity is different. You don't join an aesthetic, you simply embody it. It's a very interesting sociological development IMO.

Commercialization. The most shallow and aesthetic layer of a particular thing is what generates the most money. Clothes, collectibles, etc. all fuel consumption. Meanwhile, the deeper and more esoteric layers of a subculture or belief system cannot so easily be profited off of. Platforms like Twitter and Instagram are, by design, dominated by low substance photography and captions, so your ability to find a community and a place to be becomes dominated by your ability to conform to the aesthetic signals. As these platforms also encourage competing for attention and power, you work to optimize this aesthetic signalling in order to make friends and get followers. This does spill into real life, as people will curate a certain aesthetic to find partners on things like Tinder. >They seem completely neutered when it comes to actual efforts toward something. This is a feature, not a bug. Capitalist realism makes us believe that there is no alternative to neoliberal secular humanism, but most people are not happy with it. Tech algorithms steer you into esoteric aesthetic heavy subcultures that make you feel like you are a part of something that maintains your values but is ultimately toothless. See: >Chapo Trap House brand "trans cuties uwu" commies that mostly freak out about pronouns >Tankies >Hoxhaists >Pol Pot sympathizers >Tradcath monarchists >BAP inspired Nietzchean fascist bodybuilders who chug raw milk and LARP as steppe warriors >Various esoteric fascists like the Kaliacc Hindu dudes, Evola wannabes, Mishima wannabes, whatever >Orthodox Christians who got into it because of that one pic of the old guys with black robes and long beards >Ancaps None of these people are ever going to get anything done, but they get an outlet for their frustration and feel less lonely when they get back to the grind. All of these groups have their own gimmicky aesthetic brand they conform to. One interesting thing to note is that anime is popular in just about every one of these digital aesthetic subcultures.

Studying is hard and requires time and effort, indulging into the image of being skillful can be give much more immediate gratification. As we see in OP's images there is not much substance, no mention of what this 'dark academia' knowledge is or what books they even read. Given its tumblr posts i wouldnt be surprised if they were written by teens who desire belonging and approval, as per my pic. My theory is that aesthethicists and people who attain knowledge actually repel each other even if one desires the image of the other. Skids hang out on /g/ and discord channels while the actually 1337 people spend most of their days making commits to github rather than making 300 threads about desktops and cyberpunk anime. Researchers will participate in mailing lists and go to conferences while dark academia adherents will romanticize sipping coffee whilst reading a book (the books content being irrelevant). I had a similar experience when i started playing guitar. At first it was very delightful to read article on thehardtimes to get insight into music culture and such. But as i developed my skills it became more engaging to actually practice than reading jokes about playing Stairway to Heaven. I hope though that everyone in this thread are well aware that this site was founded on cyberpunk larping and superficial technology worship, 'lainons' are not above aesthetics.

>>35979 Avoid all LARPing. Pure waste of energy and seeing a lot of vapid people. A good test of LARPing is a question what results of this for you if you are a master of it? If it's nothing tangible, then it's pure LARPing. I really recommend watching Quadrophenia, as basically The Who called out (and fuarrrking destroyed) entire Mods subculture for being LARPers. It's great. https://www.youtube.com/embed/hb8TfdeRJgk

>>36025 >I hope though that everyone in this thread are well aware that this site was founded on cyberpunk larping and superficial technology worship, 'lainons' are not above aesthetics. I think lainons are above the other aesthetics-subcultures and that's because of the other interests associated with cyberpunk, the actual productive hobbies that connect to it such as programming, DIY and technology. Being a Lainon, at its core, is a LARP but the kinds of people drawn into Lain tend to be productive and so there's still some nugget of goodness there to Lainons that the other aestheticists don't have and chiefly, it is that they are, in other aspects of their lives, good producers. I think LARPers are producers but what they produce is merely an impression of who they are in people's minds. Quite simply, they seek to be someone rather than do something, as Lainons do. In fact, I think the fact that being a "Lainon" is an obvious LARP is a good thing as it protects Lainons from falling into the ego-trap of seeking to be rather than do.

>>36029 I mean you can be fully comfortable posting here and have not watched SEL, nor even any other cyberpunk art. We barely discuss it per se.

>>36029 > the kinds of people drawn into Lain tend to be productive My experience debating with people here doesn't lend itself to this interpretation. I get the feeling that a lot of people here haven't done much with their lives and are really self conscious about it, hence why they consistently try and tear other people down for trying.

>>36034 This rings very true. There's several types of people here, and none of them are really worth talking to: lazy obnoxious wannabes, fakes, bigots, preteens, knowitalls (who know damn near nothing), literal fuarrrking nazis (on a chan? who would've thought?), genuinely crazy people (monitor the board every few days for a month, and you undoubtedly see some of our common interlocutors). That being said, there are a few (and I emphasize few) alright folks. And those few make it actually worthwhile coming here. The best thing you can do is develop a thick skin, and be ready to either ignore people, or soykaf all over them.

>it's another episode of mental institution patient making a post on Twitter and journalists/imageboard dwellers seeing it as the new hot cultural trend Am I the only one who sees this? Every chan I go, some group of people posts Twitter screenshots, often times in synchronicity to push their agenda. Twitter is the least populated of the "big" social medias, yet they are the only type of outside opinions I see regurgitated to chans. Nobody posts stuff from regular forums, or coincidentally, even Facebook which is far more populous than Twitter and allows greater volumes of text.

>>36048 In part, you've answered your own questions. >far more populous than Twitter and allows greater volumes of text Brevity is the soul of wit (and rhetoric) >screenshots This is a common tactic on twitter to shame people for wrong thinking. Sometimes it's "censored" to "hide their identity", but it's trivial to find the original, making it pointless (and the user ALWAYS finds out, likely because of the small world phenomenon). The overarching situation is that people are gullible. There's a lot of troll accounts on twitter that push all sorts of outrageous stupidity (everything from "the word 'idiot' is ablest" to zoophilia, and on and on). Whatever is remotely congruous with the status quo is latched upon and promoted. Since we're in a downward spiral of so-called "social justice" trumping anything else (including actual justice), the trend is to continue pushing things in this direction. Incrementally, people are being shifted. They're all effectively "Yes, And"ing each other and themselves into a state of disconnect so far removed from reality, that some are dropping off and criticizing their ex-peers for their extremism. This, of course, never ends well for the person who has stopped to question their dogma. Let's consider a very relevant example, the resignation of the google "AI ethics researcher", Timnit Gebru. Now, carefully re-read what I just wrote in the last sentence. See it? Resigned. That's right, and it's important. Go look at the discourse, and the reporting. You will see mention of this word, but you'll also see a lot of two things relevant to this word: it is buried in the article, often near the end, and it is dismissed, rebuked, semantically altered, misrepresented, or otherwise shown in such a way as to change the circumstances of her departure. This is very important to the point here, the facts of the matter verify that this is the correct word to describe what happened (by even her own admission of events), but due to google accepting her - delivered in writing - resignation, it has been cast as her being fired. People have been incrementally pushing language in all sorts of insane ways such as denying the reality of biological females, and (full disclosure: i hate him legitimately, but I have genuine reasons rather than propaganda) slandering Trump or demanding he do things which he has repeatedly done, and then outright lying about it (he didn't do the thing we demanded he unreasonably do for billionth time, and he did it). 1984 language war seems to be the code of conduct, and no prisoners will be taken. What does this mean to your observation? Quite simply, twitter does something facebook and others don't do nearly as well: it produces a mobile monoculture and propagates it. Through the terseness of however-few characters it gives you, the air of authority (due to journalists, who people still foolishly trust), punchy memes, groupthink, actively shaming dissent, incremental movement of the status quo, and the existence of opposition that is typically comical (making the other unreasonable people seem pleasant or even desirable; psyop anyone?) it creates an ideal environment for the production and dissemination of cultural shifting thought and speech. Facebook simply doesn't do this: it is much too atomized, the demographics lacks balance in the influencing categories, it enables and encourages excess verbosity, it is more often shamed by the press than revered, and its monoculture isn't in active motion. The mobility or active motion is particularly important. Culture is not static, and thus it must be in motion. If you aren't steering it, somebody else is. A few years ago, people would righteously see a tranny and not promote them, or even denigrate them for trying to force their mental illness on the rest of us. Now, we see the result of incrementally pushing the needle step-by-step. We weren't steering, so others did. And these people were those who were mentally ill enough to believe such garbage, but not quite enough to be outrageous about it.

>>36049 I also should point out that there's a slant to moderation. Every place that has moderation has a slant, one way or the other. Try saying anything positive about blacks or gays on /pnd/. Similarly, Twitter doesn't "tolerate" factual statements like "biological women are women" and "men can't be women". This is despite overwhelming scientific evidence. It is a choice of moderation (or in this case, censorship) and thus represents a slant - one that is very much political. This will necessarily bias the conversation.

The split I see are three groups of people: "Creators", "Contributors", and "Lurkers". This is known as the 90-9-1 rule in internet culture and in this post I am trying to explain my conception of a synthesis between this internet rule and wider aesthetics. Taking your example of dark academia as fashion and aesthetic (not actually participating in academia): Creators are the ones that make/alter clothing, carefully select an outfit that looks good and takes good pictures, create slick youtube videos, photos, or tiktoks which can define a sub-aesthetic or inspire awe -- these are the people that are participating and creating the aesthetic. They are having fun and even if they give up on this in 5 years, they will have learned something, influenced others, and refined their aesthetics, or even meld it into a new aesthetic with a new name. They are working with the physical world to create artifacts, whether it be clothing or photographs. The contributors are the people that post about it (like OP's scrots), have online opinions and analysis about it (like me right now!!), write lowercase posts on twitter/tumblr, curate a bunch of pictures they like onto a instagram/tumblr page, maybe buy some stuff others tell them to and wear it to take some amateur pictures anonymously but never commit and wear it in public. I think the dividing line between contributors that create content and the creators is ultimately that they never collaborate with others to create something or discuss specifically with other creators, whether that be a photoshoot or costume. Finally the lurkers just think about it and look at things. They consume the videos others make, search "#dark academia" on tumblr and follow creators, follow the youtube channels, follow the instagram influencers, etc. There's nothing wrong with this but it will lead to an unfulfilling existence if you identify with it but never act upon it. This is my experience based on trades and skills I have worked hard at, practiced, and gotten better at over time, and how I have seen youtube creators interact. Creators aren't usually on forums, they're making or talking to other creators. It's easy to talk about things, post about things, or think about things; it's even easier to just think about it without typing anything up or curating content; but it's rare to create something and even harder to create consistently. See >>36025

>>36053 Does this thing have common grounds with those "studying girl" images and "homework music" compilations? Am pretty sure, 90% of this aesthetics proponents are late teenage girls, they are the only ones who like and adore "studying" and "reading books", in the most superfluous way, just for the sake of getting good grades at school.

>>36055 I think you don't have a firm grasp on the concept of girls if this is how you think.

>>36055 No, I don't think that dark academia has anything in common with "lofi girl" -- this image is referring to a specific youtube channel (ChilledCow). It has nothing to do with dark academia besides "girl studying". Dark academia has more in common with something like the Dead Poets Society, and like you said the main creators/consumers of this aesthetic are girls on tumblr and tiktok that are attracted to that style of dress, style, and decorations. But it has nothing to do with the lofi girl. Women participate significantly more than men in household/fashion purchasing, so I would not be surprised if elements of this fashion become more mainstream as the followers of this aesthetic age and have purchasing power. Plus, guys might dress with some elements similar to this if women show preference for it.

>>36025 >My theory is that aesthethicists and people who attain knowledge actually repel each other even if one desires the image of the other I think this is often true, and it's probably because once you actually delve into something in more than a superficial way, you realize how much of a LARP the "aesthetic" part of it is. >I hope though that everyone in this thread are well aware that this site was founded on cyberpunk larping and superficial technology worship This seems to be the case for almost any "cyberpunk" community online. There's nothing wrong with liking the aesthetic and fiction genre (I like it too). But when some people try to mix the aesthetic part with actually doing something it kind of becomes a ridiculous LARP, because I think that many of those people overlook the fact that society is already becoming more and more cyberpunk, just without the aesthetic. >There's nothing wrong with this but it will lead to an unfulfilling existence if you identify with it but never act upon it This is also true imo. I used to be a /g/ larper in highschool, but I'm happy that I acted upon it and actually got into university to study computer engineering.

>>36058 The Verge article from 2017: "A matcha latte, a pink MacBook Air, the word “tuberculosis” scrolled in gel pen cursive. This is what studying looks like if you’re part of an ever-growing group of young women who run “studyblrs” — a portmanteau of study and Tumblr." There is definite connection. It also reminds me of 2011~esque cozy autumn cabin aesthetics that also included imagery of big home libraries with subtext of reading prose (and posting quotes from it) popularized on early Instagram.

>>36072 >I trust a Verge article from 2017 to tell me everything I need to know about culture.

>>36058 I want to stick my dick in the lo-fi girl.

>>36074 >Anything: exists >Men: I wanna stick my dick in it...

>>36075 Yes.

>>36072 This is a different thing, but I don't blame you for confusing the two. Studyblr is about pantomiming being organized and dedicated to your school work. More in common with the lofi girl actually, but less "cozy" and more "interior decorating catalog home with a macbook". Dark academia is about pantomiming being a degenerate misunderstood genius at a prestigious old world style university. You're supposed to be jaded and apathetic towards your grades but intelligent and creatively successful despite yourself.

>>36072 You are right that there may be may be some connection between 2017 studyblr and 2020 DA. Especially the style of the images in the verge article from 2017 compared to 2020 images and videos. A comprehensive analysis could be done on connections between tumblr profiles if someone was inclined. But the original premise >>36055 was having common grounds with the lofi girl / study music, which may branch from "studyblr" or have associations with it but is not associated with DA. If you look at that article there is no mention of lofi girl / study music.

This looks like someone found their old stash of Harry Potter gifs and stage pics of Alan Rickman and David Thewlis and decided to pass this treasure of ancients to the newer generation. Literally 1:1 copy.

>>36115 Damn you're right, just substitute "dark academia" with Harry Potter and it would look no different. Though there would be less to gripe with when its an honest LARP.

>>35979 >What do you think of aesthetic culture? I think that it is a easy way into something you have to work for years to achieve, depending on the aesthetic culture (AC) that you adopt. Some ACs are revolving around pure fashion, but that is a completely different thing. What I am referring to are ACs like Dark Academia, where they value something immaterial or a certain lifestyle. In this case, knowledge. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but I believe that they do not value knowledge per se, but the appearance of it or being perceived as knowledgeable. You can see that by how much emphasis is put on clothes and setting while reading or doing something that is considered smart. If they were interested purely in knowledge that they get from books, they would not care about how they look, nor would they romanticize a whole learning experience and identify themselves with that particular AC. Now, I am not saying that you cannot enjoy these things that are mentioned by Dark Academia, but somehow I get the feeling that it is more about LARP-ing that you are liking something and doing it, than actually doing it. >What caused the sudden rise of said culture or is it something thats always existed, but got a name? Probably internet, but I do not know for sure, nor can I pinpoint the exact time and thing, as I do not know much about it. I mean, something like this probably always existed in one form or another, but now it is wide accessible because of the internet. You can start a fad from home and people around the globe will agree upon it and join your club or whatever. Aesthetic cultures of today are more concerned with appearances than substance. For example, music subcultures like metal were more about music, not fashion. I do not say that fashion was not relevant, it was, but what really everything was about was music, bands that people listened to and discussed. Those who were only doing it because of fashion or to be cool were called posers and were not taken seriously. If you wanted to be a part of certain subculture, you did it because you genuinely liked the things that it represented and you wanted to talk to people about it. I am not sure if I am clear enough, but content/substance of a subculture was more important than appearances and settings. Nowadays, you get instant access to appearances and everybody respects you for that. It is easier, but in essence, it is LARP-ing. All in all, these are my two cents...

>>36122 No way, out of any genre i would say metal is the one that is the most based on aesthetics save for some exceptions like modern prog metal.

>>36124 Is it? Where I come from, metal aesthetics was something secondary. Of course, it was prominent and everybody were dressing like metalheads, but it wasn't about appearances. They were secondary to the discussion and enjoyment of this type of music. It was about discussing bands, lyrics, song structures, comparing bands etc. There were many metalheads who looked like your average person and nobody would say a thing. Of course, this may depend on time and location of said subculture and there definitely was a huge number of posers, but still, I have a feeling that the base of it all weren't appearances and pretending you like something. Maybe metal is a wrong example, but I hope you get the point of my post.

>>35979 I just watched a video by a guy with Aspergers comparing Autism to ADHD and I'm beginning to think I legitimately have ADHD. I've considered that I have it a few times in the past as well. A big reason why I never took it seriously though is because I spent so much time on the internet that I thought I was just another person with a crippled focus due to spending too much time on the internet. In the past, I gave in to the idea I'd often see regarding this topic that those with self-perceived ADHD are just weak-willed and if a person needs to rely on drugs to get the work they need done, done, they'll never be successful so they should just try harder to be stronger There was definitely truth to the idea that I was just weak - after all, I certainly didn't treat my work with the level of priority it deserved, considering I needed it to get a job and live a functional life as a member of society, something which I felt mostly apathy towards. It also aligned with my ego's desires regarding my self-image - that with my will, I could focus on anything, do anything and be anything. Nowadays, I'm more humble and I'm willing to concede to the possibility that I do actually have this issue (and I severely doubt I can't be successful, despite relying on drugs). I've recently discovered that another issue amongst those with ADHD is something in the community referred to as "Rejection Sensitivity". The fact that a hypersensitivity to rejection is actually a common problem amongst those with ADHD and I was literally in physical pain from the cringe I would experience from involuntarily remembering past social blunders to the point where I couldn't even focus on a one hour lecture really seals the deal for me - I truly have ADHD. One of the recommendations for those with ADHD in order to get their work done is to add some kind of novelty to their work. If I were to dress in the Dark Academia style and LARP as some 19th century aristocrat at a coffee shop whilst I actually do work, this might help me out. It'll fulfill my attention-craving which will ease me somewhat and maybe some day, when I have some actual skills under my belt, I can leave the LARPing behind in favour of communities where the members are concerned with actually developing a skill as ultimately, I do wish to actually grow in my craft. I think this is a good solution for someone in my position. This is all quite embarassing but, as I am a covert narcissist, realistically, I think this is a great way for me to get myself into a better, healthier position in life. One thing is clear to me: I'll never romanticise myself again. I will always consider my actual state, no matter what.

>>36029 https://www.lainchan.org/r/res/22105.html

>>36115 Great find.

>>36115 I also see certain rise in romantization of the upcoming "roaring 20's" decade: Electro swing genre (although, it's rather dated for modern high-schoolers to be synchronous with, it slightly predates the latest retro wave/80's synth pop revival popularity) Retrospective-noir movies with heavy accent on dark neogothic and art deco aesthetics of 20-30-40's: Man in the High Castle, Babylon Berlin. Speaking of Harry Potter. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is set in 1926. Has lots of these "academia aesthetics": main character is a zoologist, wears tweed, worn leather boots, bulky leather bags, bow-ties, visits pompous and run-down working class architecture, interacts with bobcut females. Also, it has heavy environmentalist theme which is quite popular among young people. According to theory of 30-year fashion cycles, we've just passed the 20's-50's-80's-10's fashion period, and moving into 30's-60's-90's influence, so it's it's not quite the roaring 20's we're heading to.

https://www.lainchan.org/r/res/22289.html