Aesthetics has become a central concept in contemporary youth vernaculars, shaping the ways in which young people construct and share their online identities through visual expression, fashion choices, and cultural products (Mendez, 2023). Digital subcultures such as cottagecore and dark academia exemplify how aesthetics function as both a rhetorical and identificatory tool (Paßmann & Schubert, 2021; Schreiber, 2017). However, the engagement with aesthetics among young people extends beyond personal expression; it reflects shared cultural practices that contribute to a broader aesthetic rhetoric. A failure to acknowledge these aesthetic dimensions risks reducing such engagement to mere social or ideological constructs, thereby overlooking the intrinsic role of aesthetic meaning-making.

In both educational and academic settings, aesthetics and artistic inquiry have gained increasing recognition beyond traditional art education, particularly in the domains of arts-based research and pedagogy. Within this framework, artistic creation is approached as a form of knowledge production and a means of epistemological engagement (McNiff, 2014). This holistic approach, which “combines the tenets of the creative arts in research contexts” (Leavy, 2018, p. 4), provides alternative ways to engage with knowledge (Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020). From this perspective, creative processes and artistic products serve as valuable sites of inquiry within disciplines such as sociology and history.

However, introducing art as ‘equipment for living’ or a ‘pedagogical tool’, is not new and has long been advocated for by scholars such as Kenneth Burke (2023) and Henry Giroux (2001), offering insights into the ways and inner principles that society is based on. Similarly, Cultural Studies argues for a praxis-oriented approach that extends beyond theoretical frameworks into lived experiences and pedagogy, including art as a form of knowledge that can teach us more about the beings and doings of the world (Rodman, 2009, p. 158).

Despite these theoretical advancements, the integration of aesthetics within education remains largely limited to the representational and ideological dimensions of artistic products, often neglecting their aesthetic and rhetorical features. This raises the question of how aesthetic and artistic elements are considered—or, conversely, overlooked—when meaning is derived from artistic creations in other (academic) disciplines. Scholars such as Patricia Leavy argue for a more balanced approach, one that acknowledges the role of aesthetics and affect in knowledge construction (2017; 2020). Similarly, Elliot Eisner’s work in arts education critiques the tendency to subordinate aesthetic experience to broader sociocultural interpretations (2003).

The increasing engagement of young people with digital and aesthetic practices raises the question of whether and how aesthetic features are meaningfully incorporated and interpreted within arts-based educational contexts. This consideration is relevant because a deeper engagement with aesthetics can enable educators and researchers to develop a more nuanced understanding of diverse cultural expressions, ensuring that pedagogical approaches remain both contextually relevant and culturally sensitive. Secondly, it encourages critical awareness of our ‘pieties’ towards aesthetic expectations, challenging us to move beyond artistic conventions. (Burke, 1935; 1968). This leads to the central question: to what extent are aesthetic elements actively engaged with, and how are they interpreted by students?

This study examines how students engage with aesthetics in their critical responses to the documentary Draw for Change! within a Cultural Studies course at Ghent University integrated in the master of educational sciences. Specifically, it explores whether and how students acknowledge and employ aesthetic features when reflecting on the documentary through creative responses. Drawing on Kenneth Burke’s concept of pieties (1935) and Barry Brummett’s notion of rhetorical homologies (2004), the study analyses how students construct an aesthetic rhetoric in their creative works and what this reveals about their awareness of aesthetics as a communicative and meaning-making tool within an artistic product as this documentary.

The research conducted during the 2024-2025 academic year involved n=104 students enrolled in the Cultural Studies course at Ghent University. This group primarily consists of students from the fields of Educational Sciences and Social Work, though the course is also open to international students from a variety of social and behavioural disciplines, such as psychology and sociology. In this study, we aimed to explore how students engage with aesthetic elements and rhetoric in the context of arts-based education, specifically through their reflections on the documentary Draw for Change. Recognising art as a valuable source for sociological and pedagogical research, we asked students to reflect on the documentary Draw for Change, which highlights the work of female cartoonists in conflict zones. This documentary serves as an exploration of art’s role in conveying pedagogical messages, particularly with regard to women’s challenges in a predominantly male-dominated field. One episode, We Are Fire, focuses on Mar Maremoto, a Mexican cartoonist who uses her platform to create safe spaces for women, addressing issues such as sexual violence and femicide in Mexico. Students were asked to reflect artistically the documentary, explaining the significance of their chosen artistic features. Students’ reflective responses were structured as creative projects, where they were asked to produce an artistic response to the documentary and write a short report explaining their creative choices. In analysing these creative projects, we apply Barry Brummett’s (2004) concept of rhetorical homologies, to examine the formal resemblances between discourse and real-world experiences. This approach allows us to investigate the aesthetic features students recognised in the documentary and incorporated into their creations. In addition to homologies, we applied Kenneth Burke’s concept of pieties to analyse students’ reports, focusing on their expectations and conventions surrounding the aesthetic features of the documentary. Pieties, in this context, refer to the culturally ingrained standards and norms that shape our perceptions of art and its aesthetic value. By examining how students' prior expectations influenced their interpretation of the documentary’s aesthetic elements, we sought to better understand the role of aesthetic meaning-making in their responses.

The documentary Draw for Change provides a powerful intersection of art, social justice, and gender issues, which serves as a valuable context for exploring the co-construction of meaning between aesthetics and rhetoric. Through engaging students in both critical and creative reflection on the documentary, the goal was to deepen their understanding of how art can serve not only as a pedagogical tool but also as a medium for social critique. One of the key outcomes anticipated from this exercise is the development of a more nuanced understanding among students regarding how visual elements in the documentary influence their interpretation. In previous assignments, students primarily reflected on the content and cultural differences presented in the films but often overlooked or did not explicitly recognise how their engagement with the visual elements shaped their understanding of the themes. By introducing creative assignments, we hoped to push students to consciously engage with the "extra layer" of meaning embedded in the aesthetic choices, forcing them to consider how visuals convey messages beyond content. Moreover, the creative aspect of the assignment offered deeper insights into students' own conventions and terministic screens—the underlying frameworks through which they interpret and evaluate art. This included examining their pre-existing notions of aesthetics, which may be shaped by factors such as Westernized art education, exposure to a perceived "canon," or their engagement with online cultures. In doing so, the exercise not only fosters a more sophisticated understanding of aesthetics as a tool for meaning-making but also revealed how students' own frameworks influence their perceptions and responses to visual culture.

Burke, K. (1968). Language as Symbolic Action. Univ of California Press. Burke, K. (2023). The Philosophy of Literary Form. Univ of California Press. Brummett, B. (2004). Rhetorical homologies: A theory of form and meaning. University of Alabama Press. Eisner, E. W. (2003). The arts and the creation of mind. Language arts, 80(5), 340-344. Giroux, H. A. (2001). Breaking into the Movies: Pedagogy and the Politics of Film. JAC, 21(3), 583–598. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866426. Mendez, M. (2023, March 7). What is corecore? The TikTok aesthetic that's taking over the internet. Time. https://time.com/6248637/corecore-tiktok-aesthetic/ McNiff, S. (2014). Chapter 2: Arts-based research: A reflective approach. In P. Leavy (Ed.), Handbook of arts-based research (pp. 17-35). The Guilford Press. Leavy, P. (Ed.). (2017). Handbook of arts-based research. Guilford Publications. Leavy, P. (2020). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. Guilford publications. Paßmann, J., & Schubert, C. (2021). Liking as taste making: Social media practices as generators of aesthetic valuation and distinction. New Media, 23(10), 2861-3136. Rodman, G. B. (2009). Cultural studies is ordinary. In D. Held (Ed.), About Raymond Williams (pp. 163-174). Routledge. Schreiber, M. (2017). Audiences, Aesthetics and Affordances Analysing Practices of Visual Communication on Social Media. Digital Culture & Society, 3(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2017-0209 Vaughn, L. M., & Jacquez, F. (2020). Participatory research methods–choice points in the research process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 1(1).