Aesthetic: Subcultures in an Offline-Online Reality

Authors

  • Natalia Rosales Benítez Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, México Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56294/piii2024.121

Keywords:

Aesthetic, subcultures, offline-online hybridization, prosumers, cultural industry

Abstract

Introduction: The term “Aesthetic” underwent a significant change in 2020, going from being a little-known concept to a common phenomenon on social networks. Its use became popular among generations Z and Alpha, reflecting a new paradigm in digital communication. This concept emerged in a context of confinement, where interactions moved to the digital, blurring the boundaries between offline and online reality. The study set out to define and analyze the “Aesthetic” phenomenon within this new social and cultural dynamic.
Development: From a theoretical approach, the article explored concepts such as subcultures and cultural industries, analyzing how Aesthetics can represent social movements, but also suffer a loss of their original meaning when they are aestheticized and commercialized. It was identified that technology and social networks played a key role in the diffusion of Aesthetics, functioning as spaces of interaction where users not only consume content, but also produce and transform it.
The study identified essential characteristics of Aesthetics, such as the materialization of values in visual elements and their exchange on social networks. An analysis model was developed that explained how these concepts evolve and adapt according to the interaction of prosumers. An exemplary case was the “Coquette Aesthetic”, whose popularity grew to the point of influencing political campaigns and generating derivations such as the “Tumbette”.
Conclusion: The article concluded that Aesthetics, although they may represent subcultures, are influenced by the culture industry, which dilutes their original values. Their fluidity and short duration raise questions about their impact on youth identity and globalized culture. In addition, the extent to which these phenomena can be used to aestheticize social problems was questioned, as well as whether they really constitute a new form of cultural identity or just a passing trend driven by the market.

 

References

1. Fuentes Navarro, Raúl, et al. (2017). Inter-acciones: apuestas regionales de la investigación en comunicación. Bogotá, Colombia: Corporación Universitaria Minuto de Dios.

2. Smiers, Jeroen. (2018). The Creative industries: A critical mapping. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

3. Hesmondhalgh, David. (2019). The myth of the creative class: Debunking the twenty-first century's most dangerous idea. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

4. Sun, Jingwen. (2021). Analysis of aesthetic homogeneity based on the theory of The Society of the Spectacle — Taking Xiaohongshu as an example. Media Convergence, 11(1), 1-10.

5. Zhang, Yuanyuan, et al. (2020). Analysis of media's effect on people's aesthetic: A case study on Tiktok. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology, 26(1), 31-43.

6. Rodríguez-Cano, Rafael, & Gutiérrez-Martín, Alberto. (2021). Estéticas en Tik Tok: entre lo histórico y lo digital. Prisma, 32(2), 37-51.

7. Subcultures in the Digital Age: Identity and Community in a Networked World. (2017). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

8. Gil-Rodríguez, Mario. (2016). Subculturas juveniles: identidad, idolatrías y nuevas tendencias. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Ariel.

9. Beltrán, Luis Ramiro, & Wrana, Dejan. (2018). La investigación de la comunicación en América Latina: Condiciones y perspectivas para el siglo XXI.

10. Revista Mexicana de Estudios de Comunicación, 11(22), 11-38.

Downloads

Published

2024-12-30

How to Cite

1.
Rosales Benítez N. Aesthetic: Subcultures in an Offline-Online Reality. SCT Proceedings in Interdisciplinary Insights and Innovations [Internet]. 2024 Dec. 30 [cited 2025 Mar. 9];2:.121. Available from: https://proceedings.ageditor.ar/index.php/piii/article/view/121