The thorough breakdown of the term "internet ugly" by Nick Douglas left me thinking of how memes and rage comics have evolved since my first encounter with them. A few years ago 9gag blew up as a website full of rage comics, over the years it had gained a wider variety of content and shifted to more popular platforms such as Instagram. There are comedy sketches, unexpected plot twist videos, fails, memes, and everything in between. Although the content has gradually evolved, the "ugly" aesthetics remain the same,and it seems to work very well despite its lack of beauty. Instagram is a very aesthetic platform, users spend hours to plan, create, and refine their pictures and videos. However, 9gag has a very unorganized and busy looking homepage, yet it has 42 million followers. People follow 9gag because its posts are relatable, entertaining, quick and accessible. So it got me thinking the definition of ugly and beautiful and how my judgement varies depending on the content. When I look at a photo, its ugliness or beauty would be judged by its aesthetics only, but if I were to judge a youtube video, suddenly the criteria broadens into multiple considerations. Does the video have good production? Does it have quality and relatable content? Is it interesting enough for me to watch through the full length of the video etc... Not everything needs to be beautiful for people to enjoy it. If the content was meant to be funny, and it is, who cares if it had bad lighting or shaky camera movments? We would be sharing it with friends showing them how funny it is instead of examining whether it is beautiful or not.
