“What is most beautiful in virile men is something feminine; what is most beautiful in feminine women is something masculine,” Susan Sontag, a 20th-century novelist and critic, said.
In 1964, Susan Sontag famously popularized the concept of camp in her essay, “Notes on Camp.” Camp is the idea that beauty exists within the subversion of what is conventional. Sontag argued that camp is inherently paradoxical because it embraces artifice, exaggeration and incongruity to create beauty out of what society deems as “bad” or “excessive.”
The appeal of camp lies in its irreverence: it’s not beautiful in the way that elegance or simplicity might be, but its beauty is in its refusal to conform to traditional standards. Today, this theory of beauty as subversion is crucial to understanding the ”clean girl” aesthetic.
The ”clean girl” aesthetic is a trend that began in 2022 and 2023, after the COVID-19 lockdown and around the time Hailey Bieber launched her skin care brand, Rhode. Rhode’s trademark consists of sleek packaging and minimalist makeup products in soft nude shades (think the polar opposite of James Charles Morphe palette). There is no irony to Rhode because it takes itself seriously. It is entirely humorless — scrubbed clean from it — and therefore, there is nothing remarkable or interesting about it. It is also easily digestible because the consumer is being urged to think of the brand as a step closer to a certain minimalist — or “clean girl” — lifestyle.
The ”clean girl” was all over our Instagram and TikTok feeds two years ago, and it lingers there still. The look is characterized by minimalist, effortlessly put together outfits, perfect skin, sleek hair and “no-makeup makeup” looks. One who follows the ”clean girl” lifestyle exudes refinement, and they live a life that is extremely organized and put-together. A ”clean girl” only thrives and exists under the assumption that beauty lies in perfection. But the catch is that this online aesthetic and outlined method of beautifying oneself will never be truly beautiful in the sense that Sontag envisioned.
The ”clean girl” aesthetic is aesthetically pleasing in a conventional sense because it embraces smoothness and a clinical sense of order. It ticks all of the boxes of what society has traditionally deemed attractive: whiteness, thinness and quiet femininity that plays by the rules. But, as Sontag would argue, beauty that adheres strictly to normative standards is not where the real allure lies. The clean girl aesthetic may be visually “nice,” but it is not truly beautiful because it does not subvert any expectations; it only reinforces them.
There is a problem with this image of perfection because one of the major issues of the ”clean girl” aesthetic is that it is insistent on presenting an image of femininity that is all surface-level polish without any contradiction, grit or mess. Feminine-on-feminine beauty, when confined to this very narrow and polished image, is never outright beautiful because it lacks tension. Beauty, in its most provocative form, subverts expectations. As Sontag put it, camp” is not a natural beauty; beauty, in fact, is not a concept that camp is interested in.”
In contrast, the “clean girl” is an attempt to replicate those ideals in a way that erases any suggestion of imperfection. A “clean girl” is not engaging in camp’s subversion of femininity but rather, reinforcing the very beauty standards that camp works to destabilize. The aesthetic will never be visually interesting and will therefore never be truly beautiful.
In addition to failing to meet the criteria of camp, the “clean girl” trend also operates as an exclusionary aesthetic that upholds whiteness. The aesthetic’s reliance on smooth skin, muted tones and polished features (think light makeup, neutral shades and straightened hair) aligns with ideals of Eurocentric beauty standards that have historically and racistly been deemed “pure” or “elevated.” The model of beauty that “clean girl” exudes bluntly excludes women who may not fit these rigid beauty standards.
The very concept of the “clean girl” also plays into problematic narratives around “respectable” femininity. It can be seen as a rebranding of the “good girl” trope. The hyper-visibility of the “clean girl” aesthetic in mainstream media not only ignores the rich diversity of feminine identities but also perpetuates a harmful and whitewashed standard of beauty that dismisses the depth of femininity outside of these restrictive bounds.
Instead, camp celebrates exaggeration and the breakdown of rigid categories. It is not a comfortable form of visual appeal. Instead, it is an unsettling beauty that forces viewers to reckon with contradictions and to challenge their assumptions about what “good” beauty should be.
Sontag states that the purest form of camp is something that takes itself seriously, which is something the ”clean girl” aesthetic embraces. However, the “clean girl” aesthetic does not embrace anything remotely masculine, theatrical or ironic, which is why it falls flat.
Take, for instance, the “Barbiecore” aesthetics of recent years. While it also plays with femininity, the appeal of camp lies in its intentional deception. “Barbiecore’s” hyper-feminized doll form is a caricature that is deliberately exaggerated to the point of absurdity while still taking itself seriously. Barbie isn’t merely a doll for little girls; she is a critique of the harmful perception of femininity that underestimates women, especially in the workplace. Barbie holds 250+ careers and is a symbol of empowerment for young girls. She represents leadership and has agency over her life — all while remaining capable and tough, while sporting pink, glitter and blond hair that allows her to fight against the stigma of being dumb or weak that society has placed on those traits. She flips the patriarchy on its head because she has always been the hero while her boyfriend, Ken, is just Ken. This message is powerful because it is serious, despite not always reflecting the realities of our real world.
Through the lens of camp, beauty is a cultural critique. It is a space where artifice, excess and messiness are celebrated as forms of resistance to the status quo. The “clean girl” aesthetic, with its sterile vision of femininity, fails because it does not challenge beauty norms — it only reinforces them. Camp is unnatural, exaggerated and things being what they are not which happens to be the exact opposite of the “clean girl.”
“Clean girl” is conformity to standard binary beauty standards. It’s nothing new. While it may be aesthetically pleasing on TikTok, it is not beautiful in the subversive or transformative sense that Sontag’s camp allows.
Ultimately, beauty that does not disrupt, does not surprise and does not question the systems that uphold it is not truly beautiful. The real beauty lies in what unsettles and confounds. That is the camp. It is the exaggerated, the ostentatious and the excessive. It’s what forces us to reconsider everything we thought we knew to be true about beauty.