Punk to Poser
Photo by Derek Ridgers, London.
In the early 2000s, being called a poser could spell the end of your social career. To be a poser was to adopt all the trappings of a particular subculture without any of the substance. You may look the part, but you don’t know the music, the ideas, or the story behind what you’re wearing. Today, with so many “aesthetics” and Pinterest boards, being labeled a poser rarely happens, but with its disappearance, so too are subcultures reduced down to appearances.
A subculture is broadly a voluntary, informal social group within a dominant culture “organized around shared interests and practices,” according to the journal Invisible Culture. Subcultures differ from the dominant culture, usually through social expectations, personal and artistic expression, or moral values. Punks formed around anti-establishment, anti-consumerist values through discordant music, secondhand clothing, and a do-it-yourself mindset. Japanese Lolita fashion, while it may appear superficial, focuses on an appreciation of Romantic, Victorian, and Rococo impressions of beauty and womanhood, a shift from Japan’s male-centric, collectivist work culture. “[I]t is… an activity of adornment that is not connected to socially productive presentations of self that achieve a goal,” say An Nguyen and Jane Mai for The Paris Review. In these subcultures, it is these values, along with artistic and personal expressions, that give rise to the aesthetic look. Today, aesthetic might simply mean what someone finds appealing, but its philosophical roots are concerned with appreciating art, beauty, and taste. Each group values differences in art (punk rock vs. radio pop), beauty (Romantic artwork vs. modernist design), and taste (the female gaze vs. the male gaze). And while aesthetic sensibilities are typically on a person-by-person basis, subcultures share in their aesthetic sensibilities because it broadcasts the group's values and beliefs.
Urban Magazine
When we understand the reason behind the aesthetic choices of a subculture, the disconnection between aesthetic and subculture becomes problematic. We lose context and motivation for the choices, specifically when it comes to fashion. As previously stated, the specifics of punk fashion were born out of British secondhand shops, in part because many early punks were working class. As Nandini Sood states for The Issue:
Overarchingly, punk fashion included many of the things that fashion cultures before it avoided and would consider taboo or gauche. Among them was wearing clothing that was destroyed, intentionally or through re-use, Doc Martens, and everyday objects such as padlocks and razor blades as accessories. The destroyed clothes that punk wearers embraced were often scraps of cloth held together by safety pins and chains, a shock to the 1970s UK fashion scene that prioritized pristine clothing and tailored silhouettes. Doc Martens shoes, which were heavy and utilitarian, highlighted the working-class base of the movement.
The purpose of the chains, ripped clothes, and Docs is to signal and align yourself with the values of Punk. However, this is where everyone’s favorite villain comes in: social media. The visual nature of social media puts an overemphasis on the what, the fashion-forward appearances, with no room for why, the reasons behind the appearance. Reels, photo dumps, tweets, and posts demonstrate the outer trappings of being part of any given group, but there is never enough room for nuance or context. If fashion, music, and art are extensions of the values held by any particular subculture, then the “core-ification,” so to speak, of the subculture disconnects the aesthetic from its roots and makes it insubstantial. Literally, without substance. So, where does this leave us? We will never be in want of aesthetics: cottagecore, dark academia, et cetera. However, they will always struggle to go beyond trends and form lasting communities. Cottagecore, for example, is much more interested in the look of slow, idyllic country life through photoshoots and curated Instagram feeds instead of actively living an authentic life without the fast elements of modern existence (like social media!). This is not to say that social media is bad. We at Raandoom have sung its praises for good reason. Social media can be used as a tool to create community by announcing local events, sharing ideas, and more. However, it is the fact that social media is spurred on by algorithms, likes, and the attention economy that makes meaning secondary to appearance. The aesthetic sensibility is once again an individual exercise rather than a communal one. There is no more culture to be had, or where it exists, it is in short supply. Social media is not community, and community is the core of subcultures. And so, the poser reigns supreme, with all the trappings and none of the substance.
