Social Media's Obsession with Aesthetics and Curated Identities
i'd like to start with the rorschach test today if that's all right with you M. shanspeare? MS: that's fine doctor. D: what do you see when you look at this picture? MS: dark academia D: alright and this? MS: royal core D: and how about this? MS: princess fairy castle with a pink ribbon tied to the turret core sir M.Shanspeare, i-i think i've come to a conclusion about your symptoms you may have an illness known as hysteria. MS: what? D: hys- oh! oh. wrong century. wrong doctor. i meant to say you may have something known as aesthetic obsession. have you heard of it before? MS: no doctor i-i don't understand. D: of course maybe this instructional guide will help
like most hard to understand concepts surrounding civilization and philosophy, the history of aesthetics can be traced back all the way to ancient greece. during the time of plato and aristotle, philosophers were enamored by the idea of beauty--though it's important to note that an exact translation of the word may not have existed at the time. they were curious about the purpose beauty held and the required characteristics that made it beautiful in the first place. the study of beauty was often in relation to the arts, such as visual art, literary art, and musical art. all
referred to as craft or techne by plato. i've read five sources covering the philosophical history of aesthetics for this video and i'm going to be honest with you: i didn't understand f*** all of what i was reading. but i'll try my best, which is all this channel ever asks. according to roger scruton, a fixed definition of aesthetics is hard to come by. the word is derived from the ancient greek word aesthetikos which means "perceptive, sensitive, or pertaining to sensory perception" the first use of it in modern sense is arguable, with some sources citing joseph addison's 1712 series the pleasures of imagination while others award the act of coinage to alexander baumgarten who used it in his own work to "emphasize the experience of art as a means of knowing." knowing what? who's to say. certainly not knowing what the f*** is going on
a more common easier to understand definition of aesthetics would be: "concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty." and just like mega star super boyband one direction said in 2012 you're insecure. don't know what for. but a greek philosopher is writing a list of reasons and he's eager to let you know. according to aristotle, a beautiful object is defined by "the absence of all lust or desire in the pleasure it bestows." this beautiful object must also retain order, symmetry, and proportion. it can't be either too small or too large. xenophon, a greek historian and philosopher, believed that beauty coincided with goodness and that both were essentially related to their usefulness. plato on the other hand argued that beauty was an abstract form
meaning that it remains timeless unchanging and real in comparison to the fleeting evolving and fake nature of the physical world. outside of the western world, a deep consideration of beauty and aesthetics can further be found. according to wikipedia "the oldest surviving complete sanskrit manuscript that discusses the theory of aesthetics is of Natya Shastra, written between 200 BCE and 200 CE. this theory is called rasa in the text. rasa is an ancient concept in indian arts about the aesthetic flavor of any visual literary or musical work that evokes emotion or feeling in the reader or audience but that cannot be described." in africa, the closest term to art according to
Malidoma and Sombufu Some, two cultural emissaries of the Degara of Burkina Faso, is the term 'sacred' this is exemplified by congo nkisi power objects which are "objects traded on the contemporary art market on aesthetic value and whose purpose is to serve in rituals of personal and community healing." what we find aesthetic has surely evolved since the time of aristotle. well, kind of. symmetry still seems to be a big indicator of beauty. even size remains a factor in what we find appealing. unfortunately. in 2012, lorraine cosmetics sponsored a britain wide
beauty contest in order to find the most beautiful face in the region. the winner, florence colgate, was chosen based on the following reasons: she has large eyes, high cheekbones, full lips, and a fair complexion. symmetry appears to be-- fair complexion? run that sh** back! our cultural upbringing and regional location has the ability to dictate what we find beautiful and therefore what we find aesthetically pleasing. the history of european colonization for instance has conditioned most of the world to believe that white or at the very least fair skin is the highest standard of beauty. i cannot begin to explain how much this drives me to the edge
speaking of, moral unjustness also plays a role in what we find aesthetically pleasing, to the point of our taste--as it's called--having the potential to be guided by our political and economic beliefs if you're against over-consumption or flashy displays of wealth you may find things like tesla or gucci ugly. i mean if you have any taste at all, even the most rottenest of tongues, you will find tesla or gucci ugly. i mean what the f*** is this? [clown horn] the theory of taste was a big aspect of aesthetic discourse in the 18th century. it referred to our ability to judge the aesthetic value of any given
object. analysis of personhood, especially things related to the humanities, wasn't considered the highest priority back in the day. we know this. but when alexander baumgarten "began using the word aesthetics to refer to the lower faculties of judgment" people began to take notice they realized "there was something in common experience when confronted with beauty that they didn't understand." sure, it wasn't math or science, but they knew they had to shut this sh** down until they understood what the f*** was going on. the theory of taste doesn't refer to actual tasting with a tongue, it often refers to an arguable sixth sense. it's like i have
ESPN or something. the origin of the metaphor is hard to pin down, but one theory stems from how people in the middle ages believed "different tastes elicit healing and nutrition in the body." so, in order to remain healthy in a time where eating a berry could kill you three times over, one had to be good at discerning which foods had the best value. in other words, one had to have "good taste." the theory of taste fell out of popular favor by the 20th century, soon replaced by the theory of aesthetic attitude. whereas aesthetic taste put the onus on both the viewer
and the art--i.e, the art had to be inherently beautiful and the viewer has to have enough taste to discern such beauty--aesthetic attitude focuses solely on the viewer. "the beholder's state of mind becomes more important as his or her--" just say their. it's grammatically correct, i promise "as their attitude helps or hinders the possibility of aesthetic experience." so if a viewer isn't feeling particularly aesthetic that day, they can simply refuse to see the beauty in an object however, if they wake up feeling quite dark academia-coffee cup instagram photo-rorschach test skit at the beginning of the video, they may just see something worthwhile after all. D: what do you think? MS: i don't really get it, i mean how does this relate to my aesthetic obsession? or i guess what i mean to ask is how is it a bad thing to be obsessed with aesthetics when some of the greatest philosophers of our time have their own curiosities about them? why can they do it and get praised, but i do it and get looked down upon? D: those are very good questions M. shanspeare. modern aesthetics are somewhat different from philosophical ponderings of beauty
not entirely but close enough to be noticeable. for instance the demographics have changed. there's something to be said about the way society looks down upon things primarily enjoyed by young femmes and how things fall out of favor once they're accessible to everyone not just the highbrow class so very good questions indeed. but i think the framing of these questions is off. it's not about what's bad about aesthetic obsession. finding beauty in the earth is quite possibly the only thing keeping us alive. it's about how we use that infatuation with beauty and how it impacts our society that's worth investigating. shall we keep listening? the emphasis that aesthetic attitude places on the viewer is somewhat similar to what roger scruton calls the idea of self-definition in aesthetics. we make our own way, no longer hindered by clear-cut
philosophies relating to beauty. and as scruton further argues, this act of self-defining seems to be the major task of modern aesthetics. when we think of aesthetics in the 21st century, we often think of hyper-specific instagram feeds or the unending wormhole of aesthetic niches on tumblr.com. as our relationship with technology grows more sophisticated and by sophisticated i mean as computers and algorithms begin to take over our very sensibilities, our idea of beauty is becoming increasingly related to what we see on our screens and that's not entirely a bad thing. jordan selous, author of 'what's up with our obsession with aesthetics,' argues that aesthetic niches on social media allows us to be versatile in our style and even our identity aesthetics also help us put names to the fashion and decor styles we find most appealing, especially if we're new to those communities. but above all, aesthetics make us happy. they provide connection relaxation and satisfaction in life. studies even show that people are more happy when they live
in an aesthetic city or if they have the means to experience beauty. wait! isn't 'have the means to experience beauty' paradoxical because you can find beauty in just about anything? you don't need money or resources for that, right? wrong! sorry for yelling. while it's true that beauty can exist everywhere social media's marriage to aesthetics have unfortunately warped our expectations of where to find it. and just like every other god-forsaken thing on this planet, we have chosen to find beauty in our own biases. aesthetic niches are often wrought with exclusion due to these systems we have in place outside of social media. for instance, a world that values white skin as an indication of beauty is going to feature aesthetic niches predicated upon the beauty of white skin. but don't let me talk your ear off. let's read some T.O.E mail, shall
we? we just got a letter, we just got a letter! we just got a letter, wonder who it's from! SAW: hello. a subscriber named marley states: i'm a member of the nymphet aesthetic community it was developed largely by BIPOC girls and femmes on tumblr to romanticize the carefree attitude and innocence of girlhood, something many of us did not get to experience due to racism. we really did our best to make the space inclusive of and inviting to different experiences but it's impossible to escape the association of youthful and innocent femininity within white girls. this
was so much of an issue that the pro-eating d*sorder side of tumblr co-opted the aesthetic, rebranding it 'waif.' these people harassed others in the community by using racist rhetoric including the adultification of black girls and hypersexualization of fat bodies the waif iteration has morphed into the immensely popular coquette aesthetic now. without examining the history of what's viewed as soft and innocent this version of the aesthetic will continue to be inherently racist and fatphobic. another subscriber states: i would like to point out that things such as goblin core are anti-Semitic. goblins are often pictured as hook nosed, green skinned,
money-hungry, and dirty, which are all anti-semitic picturings of jewish people. and people in this aesthetic specifically seem to only want to play into these stereotypes. all of this i have seen discussed in my jewish circles. considering this, i'm sure there's other systematic problems in
aesthetic culture, but since i'm not in those circles, i unfortunately cannot give much else. money and financial accessibility is also becoming a defining characteristic of aesthetic niches on social media. one subscriber states: since i usually don't buy fast fashion and try to thrift instead, i can't help but notice that there's very few things that fit the aesthetics i'd like to try for myself and are also in my size. accessories in particular are hard for me to justify with my limited budget i need shirts anyways so buying a fancy one sort of makes sense and feels less wasteful than buying a bunch of rings. last but not least, our final submission states:
i think there is also some classism in aesthetic culture. putting oneself wholly into one of these aesthetics can involve buying a lot of clothes or accessories which excludes a lot of people and is also a problem due to fast fashion. aesthetics like 'that girl' again often involve a lot of time which people who have to work several jobs don't have. these subscribers certainly aren't alone. someone by the name of pink slime tenders on reddit--two phrases that make my stomach curl, but i live for the investigative drama--argues that our current obsession with aesthetics essentially kills self-expression. and when you add tik-tok into the mix...well, you know what it's like on that app. i love to get in sparkly dresses. [high pitched noise] they state, "it's like when tik-tok gets a hold of something, it becomes commodified in a mainstream and marketable way to make it less about your own expression and more about fitting into a consumerist box." from large aesthetic based shein hauls worth hundreds of dollars, to
hyper-specific instructions on what to buy in order to be seen as your goal aesthetic, this certainly seems true. but even further than that, the time frame between these aesthetic trends are dwindling at uncontrollable rates. leading to even more requirements needed to fulfill a look and subsequently even more consumption. melanie suriarachchi is the author of 'microtrends and over consumption: fashion consumerism in the 21st century,' and they essentially argue that the era of the influencer has resulted in the reduction of fashion cycles. they note how fashion trends
have been around at least since the 14th century when elites showed their wealth through certain trends. in order to influence their own style, average people depended on magazine editorials fashion shows, and red carpet looks from models and celebrities to determine what was in style. this isn't wholly different from how we go about trends today, save for two conditions. influencers are now added to the melee of elites we seek guidance from. this isn't inherently bad, i don't think, but when you add the internet to the equation most things go to sh*t. whereas earlier fashion cycles lasted "on average between five to ten years," according to suriarachchi, the internet has reduced these cycles to three to five months. and that, dearest reader, is how a micro trend is born. suriarachchi defines
a microtrend as "trends that rise in popularity rapidly. however, their fall is equally as swift." with online buying and fast fashion, "followers can emulate trends they see on their favorite model, actress, artist, or social media personality in a matter of hours." and unfortunately those clothes often end up discarded once the trend dries up. according to suriarachchi, the waste from single-use outfits created approximately 95 million kilograms of waste in 2019. the production of textiles has doubled and our buying habits have increased with the average person purchasing 60% more clothing garments." so it's okay when the elites participate in trends but not when the commoners do? isn't that plutocratic? i mean it just sounds like they're mad that influencers and regular teens get to shift the tide for once instead of wealthy fashion houses. D: i certainly see what you mean M. Shanspeare.
but i don't think that's the point of the source nor is it the point of the instructional guide. you see, the presentation of this information is more so for us to consider how quickly trends cycle through and what this may mean for us. if this is the rate at which we produce, use, and discard such items, what will that mean for our future? MS: so i should just stop participating in aesthetics then? i thought you said that seeking beauty is the only thing keeping us alive or whatever? how am i supposed to give that up? D: you're right, i did say that, but i also said that it's worthwhile to investigate our infatuation with beauty and how it coincides with our technological habits do you happen to use instagram, tumblr, or anything like that, M. Shanspeare? MS: i'm sorry what?
above all i think our relationship to social media is what needs to be analyzed the most. after all it dictates how we interact with modern aesthetics. now, this isn't me climbing up on my soapbox to say these youngins are ruining their brains with that facetagram and instabook! Or as my mom would say, "because you be on that phone." and i do be on that phone! if you saw my hourly usage you'd
understand why i am the way i am. it would be hypocritical for me to condemn people for doing something that i already do so that's not the point of this video, or any of my videos dressing how you want, spending your money how you want, and finding beauty in what you want--so long as it doesn't hurt others--is perfectly fine. i would even encourage it. i think the problem arises when we let social media and the technology that grants us access to social media dictate all three. because it's no longer self-defining as roger scruton explained. it's defined by micro trends, systematic limitations, and what maria popova calls "the violence of photography." the title is a bit dramatic but "aesthetic consumerism and the violence of photography," by maria popova is such an amazing source. the level of sublimity i reached while reading it transported me into the body of a white man in 19th century britain who saw a mountain for the first time and wrote a poem about it: upon that mountain... upon that mountain, none beholds them there, nor when the
flakes burn in the sinking sun, or the star beams dart through them... sorry. popova primarily cites the 1977 collection of essays titled "on photography," by susan sontag to better complete the picture of our obsession with capturing experience and curating our lives. according to popova, images validate experience in this world, and sontag agrees: "photographs will offer indisputable evidence that the trip was made, that the program was carried out, that fun was had." when i was in high school i was really into aesthetics. i mean to this day,
i still run a curated instagram feed and i work really hard to make my videos visually appealing but back then i went overboard with it. i refused to post anything that didn't match my instagram feed and this would just depress me because i wanted to post that specific photo. how else would anyone know that i dressed up that day? how would anyone know that i ate this pretty food? how would anyone know i...well that was actually the extent of my adventures, so i'll stop there. for everyone else who partakes in much more interesting much more aesthetic happenings, the curation that social media allows creates a fantasy of our life for other people to consume. "photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy." our social media habits relate to our aesthetic obsession in many ways and in turn affect our livelihoods in many ways. without curation, without fantasy, without
the ability to pick and choose the best images of our life, modern aesthetics may not even exist if a dark academic takes a picture of their coffee cup and handwritten journal but no one's around to see it in the dark academia hashtag, does it make a sound? if we cease to experience life through tiny squares, lenses, and screens, does life cease to exist? sontag talks about how "most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter... unsure of other responses, they take a picture. this gives shape to experience. stop, take a photograph, and move on." this is vastly different from the practices that were basically held as law in the romantic era. poets would go out into nature and view a rushing stream or even something as
simple as a cloud moving over a field of flowers and they refused to put anything between them and that experience. sometimes they sounded scared in their recollections, like they were almost insignificant in the face of such natural power. we often stop ourselves right at the edge of feeling that emotion, choosing instead to experience it through the smaller lens of our camera or phone anything that's too large, that's too powerful, even things that we may find small in dimension we have to fold up in order to digest. and on the other hand, we're also too afraid to let that moment pass without some souvenir that it happened. i survived coffee in the park,
i survived this sunset, i wore an outfit that made my heart race and i didn't die... "all photographs are memento mori. to take a photograph is to participate in another person's (or things) mortality, vulnerability, mutability. precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it all photographs testify to times relentless melt... we fill our social media timelines with images as if to prove that our biological timelines our very lives are filled with notable moments which also remind us that they are inevitably fleeting towards the end point of that timeline: mortality itself. needing to have reality confirmed and experience enhanced by photographs is an aesthetic consumerism to which everyone is now addicted." D: well, what do you--M. shanspeare?
[the sound of wave crashing on the shoreline] "that most logical of 19th century aesthetes malarme, said that everything in the world exists in order to end in a book. today everything exists to end in a photograph." -Susan Sontag come on pepper. this is exemplified by Kongo nkisi- don't know how to pronounce that! pepper, don't you dare. don't--don't you dare. cinnamon. cinnamon. cinnamon. melia--melia? i'm gonna cry i might actually cry
2022-06-27 20:39
