Is there any internal logic to what you reblog as #pink aesthetic
‘Pink aesthetic’ is any image or text that satisfies any of these definitions:
Contains earnestness; may be post-ironic. Pink earnestness may be muted, positive, and is always honest. Ironic pink earnestness must consist of obvious lies that imply compassionate understanding of a truth.
Contains imagery that looks as if a pink filter of any opacity were placed over it.
This includes zero-opacity, as an image that does not contain pink whose message would be communicated more obviously (or kitschily), effectively, or expectedly (cooler as pink, initially mistaken for being pink) with pink qualifies as pink.
Any image that is operationally pink but not pink. I.e. does not use pink but evokes the intended response of a theoretical pink equivalent. These images are not made for the purpose of being called pink—they are crafted without the usage or intent of pink. Pink aesthetic then is a medal declaring “good job, you accomplished what an image crafted specifically for the emotion you conveyed likely couldn’t, and you did it without trying.”
Contains grey not for or failing to achieve the effect of monotony or sadness.
Contains non-intense imagery and a peaceful tone. Alluded motion is allowed, especially if accidental, but isn’t emphasized. Peace does not mean nonviolence or serenity. Many photos of weapons are pink.
Contains brutalist, unremarkable, or unsung architecture.