Death of the poseur and the triumph of aesthetics
The poseur is dead, and it is we who have killed them. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how to commit to a fit, and why hairstyles and tattoos show more dedication to a certain aesthetic compared to simply dressing the part. The main message was this: because while anyone can easily buy some clothes off Shein and dress according to whatever the flavour of the month is, anything more permanent represents a stronger adherence to the culture, and therefore commands more respect. Upon further reflection however, I have realized the poseur as we had known them no longer exists.
The early aughts were the heyday of subculture, many defined by music, fashion, and other interests. Ravers, Goths, and Trekkies; Metalheads, Emos, and Weeaboos. If one tried joining their space or dressed the part without actual knowledge of the history and culture, they were quickly outed and ousted. The term poseur was not only important, but a serious insult: it meant that someone only mimicked membership of a group because it was cool, not because they had an understanding of its shared interest. Pose too hard and one became not exiled from one subculture, but from the mainstream culture as a whole, because no one wanted to associate with the pretender.
Things are different now. Important to this change is that gatekeeping has become decidedly unfashionable. Gen-Z uses that word in two senses, to deny people knowledge of a secret that they know, as well as to deny people admittance to their subculture. Historically, gatekeeping was accepted on two grounds: firstly, there was the understanding that everyone new to the subculture had experienced gatekeeping to some extent, and neophytes weren’t supposed to be taken seriously. Secondly, It was fighting through the gatekeepers so to speak, that one earned their stripes: seeking out the knowledge in the face of those who didn’t take one seriously was how they gained entrance and merit. Nowadays, gatekeeping is seen through the lens of power dynamics: a clear abuse by those who already have power to solidify their position. Unacceptable in the current political climate, especially given the lack of diversity that many of these subcultures had.
The unacceptability of gatekeeping in both senses resulted in the diffusion of knowledge and the ability of the mainstream to dabble in whatever subcultures they were interested in, which in turn has resulted in many subcultures going mainstream. This is further coupled with the internet’s ability to propel subculture icons and stars into mainstream popularity: think of comic book movies or Snoop Dogg. Aside from cries of subcultural appropriation, if that exists, this has been positive for not only the Metalheads, Emos, and Weabos that are getting the light of day, but the Ravers, Goths, and Trekkies that are suddenly cool, though on and off. And when a culture is trending, what better way to express respect and pop culture knowledge other than fashion?
And thus came the holy trinity of aesthetics: vibe, core, and era. Vibes are easy to understand: certain outfits can bear slight influences of a subculture or trend. If someone wears some pink accents during the summer, there’s a Barbie vibe to it. Core is exactly what it sounds like: the aesthetic is now the central pillar of the look. If someone wears more than three pieces of pink and more glossy than matte, then they are embodying Barbie-core. Lastly, there is era, which is as committed as one can be aesthetically. If someone goes as far as to get a pink convertible and a purse toy poodle, then they are officially in their Barbie era. They’ve embodied the aesthetics as far as they could and have probably started thinking and behaving like a real Barbie.
Barbie-core is a fringe example, because what is the Barbie subculture really? Better examples of aesthetics taking over subcultures include: cottage-core (arts and crafts and rustic), dark academia (New England colleges, classics, and prep school), gorp-core (Gore-Tex and techwear), athleisure (joggers, yoga pants, and sneakers) normcore (simple, GAP-like designs), sk8 (Vans, skinny jeans, and Stussy), and construction-core (baggy vests, pants, and Carhartt). All of these aesthetics have their own culture and history, but in the post-pandemic era, no one cares anymore. Never mind that half the girls wearing Lulu pants haven’t stepped foot in a yoga studio recently, the boy wearing Dickies doesn’t know how to use a tape measure, and the one fantasizing about ivy covered colleges and liberal arts courses is racialized and queer, and would have never been accepted by the institution.
The ease whereby one can toy with the aesthetics without participating in the subcultures means that they can be tried on without commitment, and then discarded like a used rag thereafter, given that one has enough money to keep buying clothes. Gone are the days when the studded jacket of a metalhead is their most prized possession, now we are in the age that anyone can look the part after stepping into a Zara. When they decide that it’s time for the some dark nautical, all they have to do is buy more clothes. Plus, if it’s within thirty days and they have the original receipt, they can even return the faux leather jacket.
The question that then arises is if this continuous flirtation and exchange of aesthetics is harmful. Depends on who one was to ask. To the environment, certainly, to the consumerist economy, absolutely not. To those loyal to their subcultures and who see it invaded by ignorant poseurs, would certainly think so. Their use of the term poseur is similar to those who criticize cultural appropriation. Though the two can be equivocated, they shouldn’t be. Cultural appropriation is criticized because those from the dominant culture are taking aspects of an ethnic minority that they previously criticized. This would be things like Black hairstyles or Indigenous dress, aspects that are inherent to their culture, something they have no say in. Most subcultures however, have a streak of counterculturalism in them. Many dress in this way specifically to distinguish themselves from the dominant culture. Furthermore, these subcultures are effectively highly committed interest groups: the members have chosen to participate, and have chose to leave the mainstream.
Though I find that moral arguments fall mostly flat, I do take issue with aestheticism as a philosophy, valuing style over substance. This reduction of an interest in Japanese media to a style of dress, or the arts and crafts movement to crocheted dollies and dresses with pockets is demeaning. But if we were to see the rise of these aesthetics merely as a proliferation of styles, separate from the parent subcultures, then perhaps what we have is a disassociation of aesthetics from the subcultures themselves. And that perhaps isn’t a bad thing. Eyeliner and chains are no longer necessary accoutrements for the emo, nor body pillows and odour for the weeabo. The poseur is dead. Long live the poseur.
