About core-aesthetics
- February 2023
✿◕ ‿ ◕✿ TO READ WITH
« If you ask me about “No Future!” today, I won’t feel uneasy or outraged, I’ll just say “yeah, based”. »
I sometimes recall my Tumblr-era with a tint of nostalgia, but I also remember my edgy teenage-self being lost in all these labels and new aesthetics. Tumblr managed to create its own archetype: Tumblr Girls and Tumblr Boys how could we forget ? The platform has played a huge part in the redefinition of the “aesthetic” landscape and the way we identify and relate to trends and clothing. As we grew out of Tumblr, we found ourselves in Instagram and Tik Tok – new ways to create, identify with and embody those archetypes. We’ve stopped sharing ”aspirational” content and started to create it on our own. We started promoting ourselves to inspire people. And so, we both need to relate to the content we see and to be relatable. There is too much content, aesthetics, products etc. I mean it’s a quick intellectual shortcut, but I do believe that we have this tendency to over-categorize everything, so it makes sense. In terms of clothing and consuming habits this translates into “core-aesthetics”: ready-made aesthetics, easily identifiable individuals, and indie fast fashion: Dolls Kill, Urban Outfitters etc. But what’s core-aesthetics if only the dissolution of subcultures into pure apparel? What does it mean to identify as a coquette, rockstar girlfriend, e-boy, or a cottage-core girly?
When we refer to fashion, we must consider the impact of countercultures and subcultures on the productions and collections. Whether we think of Punk, Grunge, or even Cyberpunk, they all had a considerable impact on the fashion landscape and our favorite collections. Think of Vivienne Westwood, Dior by Galliano, Margiela, Undercover by Takahashi, 20471120, Julius_7 etc. But nowadays it seems harder to relate to collections in terms of countercultures and subcultures (in general). But what are they ? Sociologist Andy Bennett gives us an enlightening definition of the phenomenon in Reappraising « Counterculture »: “In terms of academic theorization, counterculture has been dramatically overshadowed by the term ‘subculture’, the latter having become a key conceptual framework for the examination of counter- and anti-hegemonic practice, particularly among youth”. Subcultures build themselves against a pre-existing order or condition. Both terms are used to “to denote a point of disjuncture between what are represented as dominant or mainstream values and alternative value systems that, although the purview of a minority, are articulated through various forms of media – music, writing, art, protest and so on; these serve to amplify the collective voice of a counterculture in such a way that a minority becomes a ‘significant’ minority.” The term “subculture” draws the conceptual framework of several alternative practices, habits, lifestyles, and ways of being. It exists in relation to a significant cultural environment.
The thing is, it was easy for subcultures to remain niche and alternative when they emerged; the “significant minority” could remain as such as it revolved around a specific ”significant cultural environment”. They were able to develop as such counter-hegemonic movements because the communities could remain between themselves, no social network, no virality, you could be cultivating your individuality more or less peacefully. Maybe it was because capitalism wasn’t yet at its pick – as everything and anything is standardized, can go viral overnight and be mass produced, maybe we need to over-categorize our identities to feel like we can still relate to something, be original and different. I don’t really know about the whys, but one thing is that subcultures struggle to make sense clothing-wise nowadays. I would argue that the notions of countercultures and subcultures are less fitting for two reasons. The first would be that the main subcultures have been erected as “classics” – they got mainstream, they diffused in the masses: Hip Hop and Rap are now hegemonical artforms and cultures, Punk and Grunge have been appropriated by the fashion industry etc. The second would be because, if subcultures offer a relevant conceptual framework to think rebellion and anti-establishment, they induce an adversative relation to an existing order. Nowadays, clothing and fashion in general struggle to be political.
I would tend to say that countercultures and subcultures rise from alternative lifestyles and art forms, all entangled in the net of significant cultural environment (Mods, Hippies, Punks, Ballroom etc.). Yet, for better or for worse - I don’t know - all of them faced the same situation: they have been widely subdivided into sub-genres and sub-aesthetics. Being subversive at core, they also partook in the diffusion of more progressist ideas and their implementation in our daily lives. If you tell me about “No Future!” today, I won’t feel outraged or uneasy, I’ll just say “yeah, based”. Because we got used to that sort of attitudes and discourse. It got mainstream. There’s no “real ones” and “fake ones” anymore yet we've implemented new evaluative systems, norms and values to rank one another in terms of authenticity.
I do believe that the meaning of theses notions has dissolved, it's more of a fantasy. We're deeply nostalgic and in way that's why we try to re-create subcultures' specific imagery. There’s way too many trends, genres, and aesthetics for us to really feel counter-hegemonic clothing-wise. Even this whole “alien”/”weirdo”-trend got viral with @matieresfecales. So, we feel defeated, like there’s so much out there, everything is everywhere at once. And this very specific feeling is what we, as a generation, are trying to undermine with core-aesthetics and “it’s giving”-behaviors.
What do we do when the cultural environment stops being self-sufficient? What do we do when our clothing and fashion style stops indicating what we like, who we relate to, who we are? Well, I don’t know, because I think clothing is still a relevant indicator. But the Gen Z individual is fluid, wild and free, they relate to the past in a very Gen Z way. The “I was born at the wrong period” is so millennial and dated. But anyways, I am digressing. What’s important is that we can note a diffusion of “aspirational” and “wanna be” behaviors in our generation – and I’m not saying this in a pejorative way. We’ve came to a point where there enough visual archive for everyone to choose who they wanna be like. I do think this is a normal reaction to the homogenization and standardization of our lifestyles and clothing. We need to feel unique and singular. And if this means that we have to categorize everything to identify better and relate to one another maybe that’s because that the only way we can do it for now.
From marginal movements to their consolidation in subcultures to their mainstream diffusion, a deep modification of our clothing logics and strategies has been enacted. It’s all about trends to micro-trends, subcultures to aesthetics, influencing to de-influencing. I will argue that, in terms of fashion, the process started a bit before 2010’s and was institutionalized by Tumblr and Pinterest especially in 2011-2014. Tumblr gave us access to a wide range of content: from archive pictures to new creators’ content and internet celebrities like Acacia Brinley and Sky Ferreira. If you ever wanted to be Tumblr famous, you had to have a distinguishable aesthetic, a whole vibe people could subscribe to. What was amazing about that is that you could share personal content as well as inspirations, content you related to. We had access to the “authenticity” starter pack at this time. I personally went through several Tumblr phases and aesthetics, yet each time, I had all the keys in hand to embody this new archetype. From the neo-grunge aesthetic to the tropical girly my teenage years were peacefully rocked by Tumblr, Mollysoda, Cobrasnake, Sky Ferreira, Alexis Ren, Essena O’neil, Luana Perez, Unknown Pleasure by Joy Division, Brandy Melville, Jeffrey Campbells platform shoes, Tavi Gevinson, Alice Dellal, Cory Kennedy etc. 
The aesthetic subdivision into subgenres and “cores” operates in a certain way. It structures itself around a scheme of visual references and moodboards. The “core-aesthetics” are not only about clothing. They also tackle the global visual imagery the individual relates to and shares on their social networks. I like to think of “cores” as niche trends followed by a significant number of people all sharing the same visual imagery and clothing references. With “cores” we are faced with this “significant minority” of people, yet instead of gathering IRL, they’re online archetypes. If I personally identify with “archive girly” because I dress this way and I follow people with the same imagery, that’s because I am chronically online and connected to my people. But in reality, when I am going to class, I can insure you that no one knows that I am wearing an early 2000’s Issey Miyake pleated top or A.F Vandervorst boots, that I’m an Acne Studios stan…. They frankly don’t care. The thing is we have developed an even more emotional relationship to the visual imagery and the way we present ourselves to others. While our relationship to the very notion of reality is more and more mediatized, we feel the urge to perform authenticity as much as possible. And garment becomes a social currency, another step in the mediatization of our existence. As we spend more and more time to curate our identity on social media, we can see several new aesthetic emerging. In her article Becoming Your « Authentic » Self : How Social Media Influences Youth’s Visual Transitions, Michelle Gorea explains that : “Many young people spend a significant amount of time selecting, editing, filtering—essentially molding their self-representation to be uploaded to the platform—using feedback and approval from their audiences as “sufficient reward” for their authenticity work, or the visual work put into the construction of an image that fosters reliability, and “realness” with the audience”. Curating authenticity and individuality imply to singularize yourself. So you have to be strategic. All core-aesthetics aim to be differential, distinctive and to convey a more refined version of yourself on the internet, real life comes second. What are the consequences of such phenomenon? Well, the visual landscape has morphed into a very segmented one: we have aesthetics, core-aesthetics, and archetypes. This is a real goldmine for marketers and brands. The 90’s, 00’s, and 2010’s “It girls” paved the way to the Tumblr girl/boy, the Twitter girl, e-Girls and e-Boys, Coquettes, Weird Girls etc. One of the key moments in this shift would be the publication of “It” by Alexa Chung in 2013. Whether they are internet celebrities or more mainstream socialites, we must consider the structuring aspect of those archetypal figures. They shaped the collective imagery and/or specific visual schemes we relate to. When hearing the name Alexa Chung, I think of Indie Sleaze, the time when Coachella was actually something cool, I think of Kate Moss and Jamie Hince from the Kills, Cobrasnake party pictures, Sky Ferreira, Charlotte Free, Freja Beha, Erichsen, Cory Kennedy etc. A bit further in time I remember the day Lana del Rey appeared in our lives and never left, reading Tavi Gevinson’s blog and discovering that one album from the XX, I think of Luana Perez, Taylor Momsen … So anyways, Tumblr played such a huge role in our lives and in the creation of archetypal and aspirational figures. To me, Tumblr would be the base ground of core-aesthetics. Once we have this imagery in mind, I guess we can better understand what happened. While the It-girl landscape was quite homogenous, Tumblr gave us an It-girl for each aesthetic and that was genius. Even if I believe that 2010’s fashion was literally the worst thing we, as a society, had even been through it was still innovative and clever in some ways because we were exploring. The concrete translation of the phenomenon: well Dolls Kill was created in 2011 and at its pick in 2014. That very same year, Brandy Melville was considered as the most trending brand. Urban Outfitters and Topshop were the places to shop. And apart from being fast fashion companies, they all had this one thing in common : they were selling archetypes and collaborating with the icons. Tumblr has paved the way to core-aesthetics. Indeed, some of them date back to our Tumblr days like nymphets and cottage-core and fairy-core. But the visual landscape keeps on evolving and shifting with Tik Tok and Instagram. For what it’s worth I think that this aesthetic fragmentation did one good thing : it didn’t limit to alt-fashion and gave credit to some underserved fashion styles. But my main problem with core-aesthetics is that they promote overconsumption through micro-trends. Whether it’s y2k, weird girl aesthetic or pink Pilates princess aesthetic it’s always the same, once you fall into the rabbit hole. Some people do want to embody those archetypes and base their whole wardrobe on it, but for the vast majority it’s more about implementing some elements of this imagery in their wardrobe. The hypervisibility of products is key issue and that’s why we are now de-influencing. But overall, I do believe that we are influenced into buying things that don’t necessarily fit us or correspond to our aesthetic. We tend to forget that it’s not because it looks good on most people that’s it’s going to look good on us as well. Core-aesthetics not only have generated some archetypes in terms of behaviors, cultural tastes, preferences, and clothing but they have also widely contributed to micro-trends. I do believe they are the result of a “hyper-choice”-oriented society. What would be the direct consequences of such visual and cultural fragmentation ? Well let’s call it the dup-ification of fashion (and cosmetics, and lifestyle etc.). Our generation’s maximalist revival can easily be traced to the numerous lockdowns and our need to make sense of these periods through consumerism. Yet, it has made anything and everything accessible, everything is happening everywhere so much that we can question the very notion of trend. Micro-trends brought dupes – they capitalize on our ever-growing need to possess and our influential side. As anything can go viral overnight, “anything” isn’t always affordable, so we created “dupes”. This led to the creation of a whole “Tok”, the #DupeTok (#dupe – 2.2B views, #dupemakeup – 26.1M views, #zaradupe – 10.3M views). The more expensive the item, the more dupes you would find. Let’s remember our beloved Miu Miu set. Sylvia Jorif even wrote an article about it : “Trend : At Miu Miu the high-impact micro skirt was the star of the show” (Vogue, Octobre 2021). The #miumiuskirt cumulates 11M views meanwhile #miumiuskirtdupe generated 1.5M views. And if millions of views are not that relevant on Tik Tok, I do believe that it’s still relevant to refer to those as they reflect that “significant minority”. We’ve seen this set everywhere, from people loving it, hating it, recreating it to people bashing it etc. We were tired of it, but we loved it still and we wanted it. To me, micro-trends are the perfect example of how core-aesthetics and this visual fragmentation of the fashion landscape are the failure of subcultures. Micro-trends are all about implementing some elements of a specific aesthetic without subscribing to it. And that’s how they destroy subcultures, by appropriating their aesthetics and re-branding them. They both require our full consumer’s commitment and minimal effort on our side. If punk, emo or cyberpunk is trending, you can easily buy “elements” of the aesthetic without fully subscribing to it or even knowing anything about the culture. If the 2010’s brought us the starter packs, the 2020’s brought us “omg it’s giving” and “I’m in my {insert aesthetic} era”. This “in my -era” thing is the very reason why I’ve created the following visual : SUBCULTURES, ARCHETYPES AND CORE-AESTHETICS. Some subcultures and aesthetics are missing or in the wrong place, let’s acknowledge it first. Yet, I’ve proceeded this way: any aesthetic related to a significant cultural environment is a subculture. Then, in terms of methodology, the division between Archetypes/Aesthetics and Core-aesthetics was based on the period they all emerged, were talked about, seemed relevant. Basically, Archetypes/Aesthetics are the fruit of Tumblr, Pinterest, Polyvore and Weheartit (2010’s) ; Core-aesthetics are the fruit of Instagram and Tik Tok (2020’s). If you wish to go deeper on that matter, I’d suggest you take a look at the Aesthetics Wiki : https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Aesthetics_Wiki it’s a great resource. 
Ultimately, I’d like to tackle a few points. The first one would be about the death of the trend cycle. If we can think that core-aesthetics and micro-trends globally undermined the trend cycle, I think we can be more nuanced about it. Let’s say that there still is a hegemonical trend which divided into sub-trends, operating the same way as the aesthetics. If we take a look at the most hegemonical trends we quickly see that y2k remains on top and that most of the trending aesthetics are y2k-derivated : bimbo-core (Paris Hilton, Snookie, Lilo back in the days), emocore (2nd and 3rd gen. emo and pop punk), cybercore (I think of both Matrix and TLC because No Scrubs is the epitome of cybercore fashion), sanriocore and hellokittygirls and weird girls are just modern-days Harajuku fashion stans etc. I think that y2k is still the main trend, it’s still ruling the runway, we see it at Diesel, DSquared2, KNWLS, Blumarine, Fendi went with it as well, Versace rose back from the dead through it. I mean I am not a fan of the McBling y2k, but it goes deeper than that and it brought back low-waisted pants so I’m thankful and I’ll stop hating. It’s still important to pay closer attention to the trend cycles and to understand that if micro-trends give us the impression of impermanence, the global operating scheme remains the same.
I think it’s great that we developed a referential language based on this common visual imagery (“it’s giving …”) but, in the end core-aesthetics are only relevant if you’re chronically online. It saddens me that we’re less and less able to relate to a significant and shared cultural environment based on the way we dress. Because nowadays the way you dress doesn’t really indicate what you listen to and what you like, all trends and micro-trends are mainstream in a way. And if core-aesthetics are “niche” trends, it’s still super easy to implement some elements to your wardrobe or to emulate stuff you see on the internet. I don’t really know why we need to over-categorize every single aspect of our lives, vibes, aesthetics etc. but I think it translates a generational angst : how do you override the algorithm ? How do you remain authentic ? How do you convey that authenticity online ?
It also maintains us in a never-ending teenage dream. As the future grows more and more anxious core-aesthetics are a great anti-adult shelter. Apart from business-core none of them is related to adulthood. Millennials coined the term “adulting” back in the days, but we didn’t invent adultcore or any specific aesthetic, lifestyle or vibe associated to it. Finally, I believe that core-aesthetics are damageable to cultural niches as they de-substantialize them, your clothing shouldn’t be your only way to have a personality.
Is it the defeat of individuality vs. hyper individuality ? Are we facing the death of subcultures ? Are core-aesthetics signing modern-days ego dissolution ? Did we reach to the final state of evolution with corecore ? I mean it’s there anyways and I think it’s something to follow, understand and process so we can learn about our own consuming habits and maybe be less influenced ????
xx
- Cyana-Djoher 