Report Blog Entry
i don't keep up with influencers or "lifestyle" internet people. i haven't been on tiktok since, like, july, and i never used it regularly to begin with. as much as i like fashion, the idea of having to be exposed to things i didn't choose to see (and my misophonia + getting overstimulated easily by stuff) make it hard for me to consistently use it. the closest i do to that is listening to video essays on my favorite youtube frontend while i work and watching jerma985 and radio tv solutions members play video games on twitch because i think they're funny. but i don't really care about those people as people (i don't know them, after all) and don't want to mimic their lifestyles. they're not aspirational figures for me.
i do like culture, though, and exploring facets of culture that i'm not a part of. i often feel like the "outsider looking in" with stuff like that, which i love, because i can analyze where it came from and where it's going more easily. this is why i was fascinated by a youtuber named tiffany ferg's video on why influencers are moving from los angeles to new york city now, and an article she linked on the rise of "aesthetic vlogging" and how the "new it girl" is not only rich and pretty, but smart, too. this paragraph in the article in particular stood out to me:
i'll get to what i think of this later - bear with me for now.
i've been lucky enough to have lived in both nyc and la myself - i don't really prefer one or the other, and i think both have their advantages and drawbacks. the influencers tiffany quoted and even the comments on her video called la "fake", saying they "used up all the filming locations", that the city "isn't diverse" and "has no culture", and one heinous comment that actually made me angry said that la had "straight millennial vibes".
new york city, apparently, is "more authentic" than los angeles is, and "more gritty". apparently, a city is either a "tough" place that can "chew you up and spit you out" or is "chill and relaxed" with "no culture", and not a large concentration of people living in one area; the sprawl, aesthetics, and makeup of the area having been something they had little to no choice in.
there's a lot less bookstores in la than there are in nyc, i'll give them that. (if you're in manhattan, do yourself a favor and visit strands.) but why do influencers, and the general public because of them, have such a narrow perception of these cities and what make them up? why do they limit them to ideas and aesthetics and photo spots? why are they speaking of entire places where people live in the same terms one might use to describe a style of dress or a genre of music? thinking of places in this way is pretty disgusting, but...why?
1. a lot of the comments i saw, and what influencers said, related to the terms of the city shift in that new york city has "a lot more content to film" (so sick of the word content), because the city is more densely packed and more easily walkable. i also saw this termed as the city being "more diverse". in this line of thinking, moving to new york is nothing more than a business decision, right? people move for work all the time.
but this is different than a normal "move for work" in that these people make the place they live their work, and playing up the idea of said place draws in clicks. i assume that influencers only made the complaints about la that they did because they were stuck to beverly hills, santa monica, dtla, and weho, not venturing past the gentrified and predominantly white areas. even if they didn't actually get tired of it, their viewers probably did. there was so much of la to see and they refused to see it. it would, in theory, be easier for them to explore the non-gentrified areas of nyc, but we all know they won't. (and if they do, those areas will become gentrified as well! yay!!) you can only see so much of soho, williamsburg, brooklyn, and times square before you get sick of it.
2. the la vs. nyc feud has been an american cultural thing for decades. the world of the popular corporate internet is very us-centric, so it makes sense that this "feud" is rising up again. there is the association of la with "new money" and nyc with "old money". because of this, it seems like influencers are flocking over to an "old money" city in order to legitimize their line of work. this is also why nyc is "more authentic" to these people - it's older, and has a longer history than the "new money" cities. (not more history, just longer history.)
3. the pandemic is also an essential factor in this. the "la instagram" world was apparently filled with models living seemingly unattainable beachside lifestyles and circling the same gentrified areas. like i said in my previous point, seeing the same thing over and over again is tiring. but the pandemic made it even more so, and most people are suffering in one way or another, and the "relaxed beach life" seems to be spitting at them. therefore, being in a city seems more "authentic", "real", and "relatable", as if rooftop parties, $45 gourmet ramen every night, and prada internships are relatable. it's a very superficial way of looking at relatability, in my opinion.
4. also because of the pandemic, people are moving away from nyc in droves, and young influencers are filling in all the empty apartments. companies in the area are apparently making up loads of new business opportunities for them. this is essentially a very smart, deregulated pr campaign, i guess.
5. in the 90s and early 00s, the "la vs nyc" meter was firmly on "nyc". i believe that in the 10s, it was 80s and early 90s nostalgia rather than only 90s nostalgia that was the popular. now, it's 90s and early 00s rather than just the 00s. this fits in perfectly in that context.
to me, this all ties together in a pretty bow. people want "authenticity". la instagram, beaches, palm trees, and the "vsco girl" lean into the "la fake and show business-only" stereotype, and nyc is, also per stereotype, the antithesis of that. to decry the "new money" city as "fake" and "culture-less" is to position yourself as being "real", "authentic", possessing of "culture", and, most importantly, "legitimate". i'll put it bluntly - it's to be insecure in yourself.
gen z is a very smart generation. (the article i linked said "gen z and zillenials" but micro generations depend on the whims of how people feel and aren't an actual thing. you're a millennial if you were born in 1995 or before, and gen z if you were born in 1996 or after - get over it.) we want accountability for people's actions. we want more than just pictures, we want information, too. this is why "video essays" became a thing. it started with the likes of a few people wanting to create a platform for the articulation of complicated issues that early-mid 10s leftist channels weren't providing, and expanded throughout youtube, to tiktok, to instagram. it's now an attitude of young people wanting to make some sort of a change in the world, to stay informed, to help out if they can. which is a good thing.
but with the incorporation of "influencer culture", or people thinking like "influencers" - gig economy, internet-based capitalism - this popular notion has caught on to advertising channels. it waters down the idea of wanting change and turns it into wanting to look like you're "authentic". "dark academia" is a great example of this. while it's not something that's being promoted/advertised in the mainstream, it's an aesthetic that's essentially a series of loosely connected, basic ideas, but there's nothing much there other than an idea. what you're supposed to wear and do. there's the connection between sweater vests and classic literature, gothic buildings with rugged yet elite intellectualism. these things, or anything else the participant may think encompasses "student life" in some hogwarts-esque elite school, connote intelligence and class. so, basically...nothing different from any representations of "academia" already present in the media. it's not an aesthetic based on a "look" - if it were, dark academia wouldn't have so many disparate variations. it's about an idea.
in popular culture throughout history, there was a culture, and there was "the counterculture". cultures counter to the mainstream one have existed all throughout history, but the first mainstreamed counter culture in the modern sense was "the counterculture" of the 1960s. the hippies have set up a pattern of the idea of "culture vs. counterculture" that's gone on for decades. with the mainstreaming of the idea of "aesthetics", and especially the internet, i don't think that model applies anymore.
the word "aesthetic" in its modern usage descends from the vaporwave movement. "aesthetic", in fact, used to refer to the hyper-specific aesthetic that vaporwave entailed - pastels, roman statues, palm trees, geometric patterns like those on arcade rugs. it was a parody of hyper-consumption and capitalism through symbols associated with 1980s consumerism. from there, the meaning of an "aesthetic" branched out to mean a "look" that was effectively reclaimed for another purpose. this concept had existed in and dominated 2010s counterculture - i remember making "aesthetic boards" as early as 2011 - but they've only more recently become a "thing". it's kind of mind-boggling that something that i and many of my online peers do for fun has become more mainstreamed.
as the idea of aesthetics and the aesthetics themselves branch out, they've come to mean something different. through the mainstreamed "aesthetic", people find niches that they can fill, ideas of people they want to be, fitting themselves into a mold, or a series of molds. as people like "aesthetic vloggers" popularize this way of relating to culture, the "aesthetic" has become synonymous with the "lifestyle", not unlike how advertisements associate specific products with specific sorts of lifestyles. think about it - they're "aesthetic" vloggers. the word "aesthetic" here with no elaboration doesn't imply an aesthetic like vaporwave. it implies the aesthetic.
there's often the question of "i like many different aesthetics, can i be all of them?" of course you can wear all pink one day and all black another. but this isn't what the asker of this question is wondering - they want to know if they can live two different sorts of compartmentalized lifestyles; ones that looks, apparently, represent.
how strange is it that the concept of "aesthetics" came to represent everything it was originally critiquing? that it was reduced from the concept of "embodying something through good looks", not defining what "good" is other than what is advertised to you? into "this look is this idea", rather than "this look is beyond this idea"? in grunge, goth, and other subcultures, the "aesthetic" has been mainstreamed and sold out. as an idea, rather than a look, it sells out the subculture and the critique as a whole. i think this does aesthetic a huge disservice.
honestly, though, i think the idea of culture turning into segmented "aesthetics" rather than a culture vs. counterculture thing is a much more honest representation of "subcultures", and a good way of countering the idea of "societal norms". it's more honest to the condition of the average person - we're all a part of some sort of "subculture". nurses, gay men, people with diabetes, funeral directors, people who hoard movie collectibles. the segmentation of culture isn't my problem here, just the diluting of the idea of "aesthetic" for the purpose of marketing.
big social media sites are designed to keep people on the site as long as possible - bringing everyone in one place and keeping them in their own corners may seem not unlike the specialized forum websites of yore, until twitter or tiktok or what have you are able to use your browsing history to bring up a post you may disagree with. if you see a post you disagree with, (i'm not just talking posts with "takes" you don't like, but people being "cringy", as well,) you're more likely to reply to that post in some fashion, expressing that disagreement. the longer you do this, the longer you stay on the site to look at other comments, the more data about you is being collected, the more data is being collected.
data can be used to manipulate your opinion, too. usually, creators are able to pay to have their stuff "boosted" on websites, meaning that algorithms aren't the all-knowing oracle of digital "content" that facebook and google like to pretend they are. i talk about this in a little more detail here, but the sum of it is that the manipulating of public opinion is now be done through data collection on websites. most of this is to make a profit, but a lot of it stems from convincing people that all these companies have everyone's best interests in mind. this is called surveillance capitalism. but these companies aren't as totalitarian as people usually make them out to be - if these things are rejected, through legislation or even mass protest/awareness, they can be curbed. but since the companies are able to use all this data to curb public awareness to their liking, (remember: google search results are curated) they're able to distract us with other things. namely "discourse" and assorted trends.
if you think this sounds like how regular advertising works, and like how subcultures from hippies to goth to grunge have been mainstreamed...that's because it is. only now, like i said, "aesthetic" is an idea, and one that i really think could help disrupt trends. aesthetics have, in a way, caught on as a cultural movement, but their influence still hinges on big corporate social media sites. i think we need to liberate the "aesthetic" from these sites, and from any ideas that liken it to conventional advertising. to use slang, we need to make it so the aesthetic never becomes cringe, but is never too based.
in addition, especially since the 2010s was such a boring decade visually, it seems like the visual aspect of our culture is slowly being watered down. there's no looks. the idea of aesthetics attempts to take that back - we want looks! - and even that's being watered down. and yes, this is a very shallow thing to complain about, but i think we all need to be less ashamed of our own shallowness. i'm a shallow person and i want more things to yasssss over.
while the compartmentalized aesthetic implies more of a focus on oneself and what one specifically wants, it's still a series of ideas and molds, and doesn't necessitate self-awareness of self-reflection about the nature of why you're looking the way you are beyond for the purpose of self-fulfillment, especially since living in a specific city or wearing a specific shirt apparently does all that for you. you can also argue that this is the case with subscribing to specific ideologies - communism, feminism, alt-right, intersectionality, anarchy, libertarianism, conservatism, every religion under the sun. it's easier to fit yourself into a mold than to create your own. this is nothing new, but it's never been so obvious. catholic churches can look beautiful, and you can love the art, but if you recognize the art coming with the idea of "the church is all-mighty and powerful", the art begins to connote the idea of submission to the church. new york city, likewise, now connotes the idea of a specific lifestyle.
i love aesthetics, and i'm not knocking them.i just think that using it as a platform for finding meaning within yourself and as a projection of what you supposedly mean is stupid. if anything, i think the people doing aesthetics right right now are "alt" people - e-kids, mall goth and emo revivalists, fairy grunge-ers, and whatever other niche aesthetic "alt" implies. "alt" has co-opted several "alternative" looks - mall goth, emo, visual kei, and nu-goth-tumblr-grunge into an amalgamation of several surface-level ideas of fashion into one "alt" look. they recognize that it's just the look that they want. the music and movies and art and stuff that go around with it aren't what draws you into it anymore, only embellishments. for them, the music is just music, the art just art, and the fashion doesn't necessitate they pretend to be interested in it. they just like the clothes and that's it. there's no uniting ethos or mass inflated self-importance further than that. an e-kid who's favorite movies are marley and me and the notebook doesn't have to prove to anyone that they're still an e-kid. for the aging or gatekeeping "alt" masses, there's the "music requirements", sure, but those are very loose, open to interpretation, and if people call you a fraud for not liking them, it's treated as a "their problem" sort of thing.
tell me, which one of these people looks more visually interesting?
like, no shade against bestdressed or any of the other "aesthetic vloggers" that dress like her, but you can't compete with people putting together outfits where they look like that one picture of a visual kei anime girl leaning on a grave. sorry.
-wd-800x500.jpg){kind=link}
of course, alt people would probably not be happy with me interpreting it that way - many use it mostly as "self expression" or as a reflection of the music they like, after all. but i'd argue that "alternative" aesthetics have effectively been commodified to the point where they're almost acceptable. capitalism, at a surface level, is always keen to capitalize (for a lack of a better word) on alternative subcultures because they "look different" and catering to this "different" niche drives a profit. after all, if all these big corpos are so bad, they wouldn't sell all these weird-looking people stuff, now, would it? on a deeper level, subcultures, at least fashion-based ones, justify the existence of capitalism, an ideology that prioritizes individualism. it expects you to rebel against it, at least in a way that doesn't threaten it, in order to properly define yourself. when you properly define yourself in terms of your state in the world - rebel, loner, anti-society, destined for greater things - you can properly begin thinking in terms of "entrepreneurship". this is why "alt" aesthetics have been able to be so easily appropriated and commodified, at the expense of whatever it is that the punks and goths of the 70s and 80s wanted to do. i'd say that they were the last truly "alt" subcultures. everything after them - mall goths, emos, "soft grunge", and "alt" alike - are products of their commercialization.
this is why i think that incorporating any sort of punk/goth/etc "aesthetic" in a first-world country for the purpose of rebelling or expressing yourself at this point is to ignore how society currently works, but how criticizing "alt" for "not being authentic enough anymore" is falling into the same trap. just because you feel different or free doesn't mean you are. just because something is "authentic" doesn't mean it's good. but i'm not trying to be "capitalism bad" this this as much as i'm trying to say "the reason why it is the way it is has a lot to do with where it was developed." it wasn't as much a nefarious attempt to derail the doings of british punk martyrs than it was a series of happy coincidences.
i think i appreciate alt on the level that people who wear it anyways and just like the "aesthetic" of it are destroying any meaning behind it, or at least not still keen on the original intent of it, sort of how things like "y2k bimbo" are now. sure, this isn't why "alt" stuff was originally worn, but it's where it's at now, and subverting meanings, instead of sticking to old ones, is what drives change. social media's "sameness" is sold to us on the lie of sincerity. influencers preface their bikini photoshoots and tiktoks with paragraphs about how they have "pretty privilege". techbros in silicon valley pay stylists to make them look quirky and approachable rather than cold and business-like. sincerity isn't sincere anymore. alt is subversive now not if it's worn sincerely, but if it's worn superficially. one e-girl looking like a million others is what makes her powerful...but only if she acknowledges that.
but i digress.
much of gen z is activism-inclined, but the prevalence of the idea of "lived experiences" still prevails in this mindset. since we are all important, all of us having "main character syndrome", all of us are inherently the most "real" and "authentic" within the context of our own "aesthetics". our experiences, as the main character, are what matter most, over those of others. anything we do, any thought we have, furthers our activism, and is important, and is not time wasted. it's a mindset not of how one relates to the world around them and how one can help their community, but how one is helping simply by the virtue of being present.
so what appeals most to shallow, aestheticized hyper-individualism? stereotypes. physical objects that are basic, but not holistic, representations of an idea. books. art films. leather jackets. a densely-populated city. bricks. lattes. bagels. prada handbags. chanel little black dresses. ivy league colleges. the subway. pigeons shitting on your shoes. if i have these things, i will be "authentic". art and philosophy, in the western sense, have been dominated by the upper class too, and hence the connection between "old money", "culture", and elitism. "i am authentic, and better, than those of 'low culture' who live in los angeles." they may actually be those things - i'm not saying they're not - but having specific items or living in specific areas that connote smart, well-rounded authenticity isn't what makes them those. these are things. people are not their things.
you know what else thinks of items like this? advertising. capitalism. yes, you're being marketed to. having "grit", being "authentic" and "real" and having to "work" for what you have under a glossy, coming-of-age lens is the basic tenants of capitalism through rose-colored glasses - just as deceptive than the straightforward "new money" narrative.
that being said - people are not their things, but they're allowed to like things. if we didn't let ourselves like earthly pleasures, our lives would be miserable. this doesn't mean we need to indulge in hedonism, since over-exposure to "good things" limits our existence to our things and our pleasures rather than our reason. on the other hand, finding justifications for relying on these things to define us is rationalized hedonism - gluttony that takes the face of reason in order to justify itself. it's only a temporary solution. it may come from an "authentic" place, so it isn't that it's not "authentic", but it's not the sort of "authenticity" the people who do this want. what they want is to avoid relying on trends, to be successful in their careers, to socialize well, to be well-read, and to set trends and make taste for the purpose of their own fulfillment. in short - what they want is the idea of capitalistic self-fulfillment and entrepreneurship. that's why influencers are able to market it so well.
the concept of "influencing" is currently shifting its meaning in order to hold its ground. "creatives" - artists, writers, and the like, now have to behave as business entrepreneurs, market themselves, network, and consistently use social media in order to make a career for themselves. this economy is unregulated and quickly shifts, the "whims of the people" and the world of sponsorships a harsh foreman for factory-like production of "content", now putting up a facade of "authenticity" as to not lose its foothold. and what is intellectualism, if not "authentic"? what are discussions of books and politics if not "cultured"?
this is why influencers and "aesthetic vloggers" are drawn to the new york city stereotype stuff as a symbol of "authenticity". but just like how the idea of art is devalued because there's so much of it and artists are expected to be businessmen and "content creators", the usage of activism and leftist politics in a persona (but not too radical, you don't wanna drive away sponsors!), or being "smart", "well-read", and "articulated" to draw in clicks, devalues ideas. if revolutionary ideas are commodified, people won't feel like they have to fight for the necessary related change that would have to be made to actually incorporate them. buying a chocolate bar with "free trade" written on the packaging makes you feel like you've done something more than your neighbor, but have you? even if it is actually free trade, "solving" problems is never that easy.
think of how intersectional feminist-related ideas are now widely reduced to specific phrases and words - buzzwords, if you will - that one can throw around. privilege, toxic, problematic, intersectional, woke, and many words that end with -ize. leftist activism, in its third/fourth-wave intersectional feminist form, has, effectively, been co opted, reduced to serve the "main character" ideal. and this is nothing new.
but you are not, and will never be, your persona. you are not the main character - no one is. and the fact that this "main character" narrative is going around in general - that certain things are associated with being the main character - represents an impossible reality, since it's "main character", not "main characters". you have to realize the people, the things, the concepts you have to dilute in centering yourself as the "main character" of life.
does this mean that you have to be an incredibly articulate philosopher to properly understand politics or books? hell no! if anything, i'm glad that there's so many resources on the internet representing these things in a modern, accessible way. but the channels these ideas are being represented in actually define what these words mean, and discuss and define concepts succinctly to their broader audience. that's not to say that influencers or vloggers can't have good points. it's just a bit...strange to me to see these ideas being watered down at the fear of losing sponsorships, to say the least. this selling of the idea of being a main character, by living vicariously through real-life main characters, and having a specific set of politics as a part of the main character-ness, rather than something that serves a purpose beyond you. this sort of advertising works, for the most part, but these issues aren't glamorous, and presenting these concepts in a controlled setting like a sponsored vlog or instagram post on a popular account may not...lead to effective discussion and mobilization. we're the earth, and these issues are the sun - we revolve around the sun, the sun doesn't revolve around us. so why do they do it?
influencers are living, breathing marketing tools. they have to keep an audience and sponsors happy. if your stuff isn't directly geared at discussing politics, it may be hard to actually talk about them, or, at least, stuff that isn't "too radical". for the influencer who actually wants to use their platform to do something for the better, it's a delicate balance between losing their job and doing it, or keeping their job and staying silent. so celebrities send out statements on their support for things, and that's good. but there's some stuff they just...can't do, even with their huge platform. christina aguleira got some flack from britney spears and a ton of angry twitter users for refusing to answer a question about how she felt about britney being free from her conservatorship. her agent told her that they couldn't speak about it. people concluded that it meant she didn't care, but it could've also meant that her label could fire her! even if it's popular now to speak out against that conservatorship, even if people like miley cyrus did, it doesn't mean that aguleira couldn't have suffered consequences for it. christina isn't an influencer, but as influencing is mainstream, it has much of the same trappings.
so these "lifestyle influencers" are known for their "lifestyle content". their politics, reading, or what have you may or may not actually be a part of their lifestyle. whether or not they truly believe in what they're espousing doesn't matter, since they're private citizens at the end of the day. whatever they do, they have to conform to the expectation they've set up for their online person. to do this, they rely on the already existing parasocial dynamics of social media, the same set of rules that helped bikini-clad vsco girls skyrocket to the top five years ago, in order to project this untrue image of themselves. this isn't a bad thing on its own - it makes for entertaining watches, after all. no one wants to see susan from south dakota make a vlog, but yvette from new york city is interesting. but we have to recognize that at least part of it is untrue, even with the most "authentic" influencer. they may be having skin problems, relationship problem, money problems, gastrointestinal problems, but you'd never know, since they never show it. and why would they? is someone being 100%, completely honest about every problem in their life, entertaining, aspirational, or inspiring? nope :) so, just like how influencers are projecting an untrue image of themselves to the camera, the ones that move to new york city, or filming around any city in general, are, too, projecting an untrue image of the city. no influencer can be 100% authentic if they want to be successful, so why should we hold them to "authentic" standards?
as i've pointed out in my other blog posts, i think the plague of this generation is a lack of critical thinking skills. i fully believe this is because of the compartmentalized aesthetics, finding-my-true-self-ness we all have. our willingness to suspend our disbelief. there is some sort of subconscious recognition of this, but no one is actually conscious enough to openly recognize it. if you point out the discrepancy between what we enjoy and what we value, what is real and what is not, you're "gatekeeping" or biased in some sort of way, and you need to "let people enjoy things". these are not said for the purpose of making something more inclusive to others, but because we have found comfort in the idea of a persona, that our "main character"-ness and authenticity are innate to us, and holding these up means affirming that we are important, and we cannot see a way out of this. instead of reflection and critical analysis, we turn to items, to entire cities, to symbols to legitimize ourselves, and rationalize this reliance on symbols.
there's a widespread insecurity about the nature of the internet, a mass confusion as to why exactly the internet is the way it is, the nature of influencing, the nature of how culture is shifting to the newer. a sense of loss, that one "can't do anything" about the malicious gig economy, so this is the next best thing. la represents "new money" and innovation, so la is now "fake" and "culture-less", in the eyes of those who do not actually want to seek out culture and meaning, feel as if they can't, or are afraid that they have none, but want the appearance of it.
this isn't to say that influencers or kendall jenner shouldn't be allowed to read books. anyone can read books. this picture of heidi montag reading about how to profit from a monetary crisis is iconic and always lives in the back of my head.
it's just strange to me that this is all being used as a way to culturally denounce superficiality, while nothing in the realm of superficiality has fundamentally changed. the only thing that has changed is that we're now self-aware of our superficiality, the superficiality of the internet, of influencing. it's almost as if these influencers and celebrities, and all of us in general, are attempting to hide our "baser" instincts - our superficiality - and trying to make ourselves feel better through using physical objects to tell people that we're not like the other girls. we're all re-"not like the other girls"-ing our society while making fun of girls who claim to not be like the other girls. "i'm not like the 'not like the other girls'. i'm just a girl who loves to read. i'm quirky and different. Get a free one month trial with BetterHelp™ by using the codeword NYCGirl!" kind of weird to me, especially since sponsorships and social acceptability are now prohibiting us of breaking out of it.
i fully believe that influencing is the newest form of entertainment and will not go away. i think in 30 or so years there will be entire institutions dedicated to carefully curating influencer pictures and videos. maybe even an oscars-like event for influencing down the line. it may sound silly now, but that's what happened with movies. so i think it's imperative to keep an eye on influencers, the poster children for the front lines of surveillance capitalism, (seriously - how "leftist" can you actually be if you choose to make a living off of flaunting how great your life is over a site that was built for the purpose of mass data collection?) and the trends they bring as a way to surveil what is being marketed to us. and what we have to overcome in order to not only be better people, but help the people around us.
i don't give a shit about a white girl in new york city wearing gogo boots and a leather jacket, saying she studies 12 hours a day while having the time to go to lavish parties and eat in fancy cafes, staying in a $3000 a month apartment with a closet full of gucci she pretends are thrifted. i want a white girl in a tripp plaid miniskirt, a black lip service tee with a pink skull graphic, demonias, and a bunny hat, all of which she got on depop, lipsyncing to money machine. that's what an aesthetic is. it's not a lifestyle that represents you, it's a look that represents something greater than you. to let go of yourself, surrender yourself to the look. to recognize that it does not define you, and you can find pleasure in it without it reflecting on you. to remember that things, in general, are not indicative of the person.
that's what authenticity is - being honest with yourself. being honest with yourself allows you to also be honest with other people, and contribute to the world around you in a meaningful way. if you're an la party girl who loves marley and me, own it. if you're not interested in kant or dostoyevsky, no one's forcing you to read them. if you prefer ya novels, los angeles over new york city, warm weather, top 30 hits, and reality shows, you're still smart, i promise. these things are also not mutually exclusive - you can like the notebook and dostoyevsky. shocking, i know. you don't have to pretend to read poetry or live in a densely-populated city to be "gritty and authentic". you don't have to complain about how nyc will "chew you up and spit you out" to seem like you're a "true" resident of the city. you are you, and that's that.
Comments
Displaying 11 of 11 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
𝐦𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐨 ★♫
You have such an interesting viewpoint and I like that :>
nohpetS
i get it. influencing has become a major industry because of the companies that have backed it. It's a lot easier to buy something when someone who looks like you is selling it.
Chris Ramos
I tried reading, but there’s something about the bad grammar that seems fake. Like you’re trying too hard.
to do what?
by nights :); ; Report
Atlas
i study communications, and though i'm only entering my second year, i feel like this essay (not sure if that's the right word??) really encapsulated some of the core ideas we've covered. it's so scary realising how i used to not question surveillance capitalism, and truly believed that it was actually beneficial on an individual level, ignoring the general creepiness of it all. now i know that it only aids our capitalist overlords (fxck u Mark Zuckerberg). like you said, this generation's great plight is our refusal to engage in critical thinking, because apparently, that's pretentious and 'not cool'. i can't help but wonder how we've cultivated such widespread apathy, where people are constantly aware but incapable of caring. but perhaps we can blame this desensitization on the abnormal level of 'content' we are exposed to on a daily basis, often unwillingly and unknowingly. billboards, advertisements on tv in between shows, sponsorships, and influencers. everywhere we go, we are assaulted by the mechanisms of capitalism, and yet are unable to do anything in retaliation. so i guess the question i'm really asking is; where do we go next?
Max
i consume a lot of video essay content and love to hear people waffle on as well. i loved all the ground you covered too as well as your takes. I definitely find the commodification of other lived experiences and culture interesting and how melding the internet has become. Makes me wonder how that'll play into internet trends as they move so quickly. It is nice to see people be able to discover and reconnect with their culture that they may not have had access to. As well as how easy information is to get with the internet at our fingertips. Your profile is lit btw
poppyp
Inch resting!! I loved this post, and even if I didn't agree with all of it, I feel it was really well written and fun to go through. I will be following your blog for more info and insight! I feel like I learned more about society today from this one post than I have in all my English classes combined lol. Keep it up!
Grybbit
Great post, I get what you're saying about lived experiences trumping everything in discussions.
I think reducing conversations about topics only to those who have relevant lived experience in that topic ends up making echo chambers.
At the end of the day, lived experience is just anecdotal evidence by another name.
thank you :)
also yeah i get that someone just reading about something isn't the same as someone having lived something but i really don't think that's an excuse to use "well i experienced this and you haven't" as an end-all-be-all. it really discourages people from reaching out to others and listening them, the whole point of lived experiences is "listen to lived experiences" but when everyone's thinking mainly of their own they don't actually wanna listen. there has to be a better way to think of it than that.
by nights :); ; Report
Aldroghar
Great, observational post! I recommend you read into our current landscape of images and representations in media (Baudrillard) and the Spectacle (Guy Debord)
c00kie !!
wow. this is so good and so well thought out, i felt my brain physically combust from digesting all the things i never thought about before pertaining to aesthetics and culture. my basic philosophy is that people are multifacited and as such we all enjoy and do things that are both "basic" and more niche, and we have to accept that and not buy into the whole idea of being 100 percent uNiqUe in any way shape or form, because then its just self righteous thinking. im gonna bookmark this so i can re-read it from time to time so i can keep myself grounded :)
thank you!
by nights :); ; Report
「Ｂｌａｃｋ Ｗｉｎｇｓ Ｓｏｃｉｅｔｙ」
The hivemind never sleeps but always forgets
Agreed, seems to me you can only try to change your own perspective on what you like and others will do what they want. If I've learned one thing change is constant. It's about the only thing that is certain.
by Austin_KornClown7; ; Report
rai-rai
thank you! :)
by nights :); ; Report
Sorry my coded text didn't show up I forgot what I wrote.
by rai-rai
;
;
Report
it's ok, i was being silly
by nights :); ; Report