Looksmaxxing, a term originating on incel forums, now one skyrocketed to the mainstream. The term describes a digital subculture obsessed with achieving perfection, where each flaw is scrutinised and everyone is ascribed a number 1-10, allowing for neat categorisation. The term and associated subculture has become prominent in the mainstream over the past few years, particularly on TikTok. Phrases like "chad", "blackpill", or "mogged" now appear in completely innocuous, if very online, conversation.

This trend for perfection is often represented as a symptom of an increasingly digital world, one where people don't have to confront reality; where you can just use a filter or ask Chat GPT to edit your face. However, these standard "phone bad" takes don't consider a wider cultural background, one of increasing conformity, social isolation, and anti-intellectualism.

Looksmaxxing isn't just about beauty, it's about conformity. The terminology associated with it allows for individuals to be put into distinct, neat categories. As this trend gains more and more traction, a disdain for things too complex to neatly package becomes louder and louder. Nowhere is this clearer than within artistic discourse on TikTok.

One genre of TikTok that will seemingly never disappear is the "standing next to art we could make" video. As simple as it sounds, creators will visit contemporary art museums and stand bv pieces they believe they could make themselves, the implication of course being "If I can make it, it's not worthy of being in a gallery"

"I could do that" discourse has been around since the dawn of time, no one needs to go over it again. What's actually interesting about these videos is how they show a resurgence in uncritical hatred of contemporary art. While contemporary, often conceptual, work is derided, videos of artists showing off classical, realism, or even hyperrealism works are celebrated. Some creators have managed to gain sizable followings from a neat formula of showing their own traditional, usually figurative or landscape, work while complaining how oppressed they are from the art world. Commenters then flood in, expressing admiration for the artist, chastising the "modern" art that receives more critical acclaim.

These two trends serve a similar purpose: they define a clear model of aesthetic-based "worthiness" and aim to chastise, deride, and destroy all that doesn't fit that model. The aesthetics preferred within both portray a eurocentric notion of perfection; slim noses and renaissance-style paintings, potentially spelling a new future of aesthetic hegemony.

The message within both of these themes is clear; if it's not beautiful, it's worthless.