Except that’s not what the author is saying at all. For example, the example you’ve given about shared interests is exactly what the author wants, and is bemoa

Except that’s not what the author is saying at all. For example, the example you’ve given about shared interests is exactly what the author wants, and is bemoaning the lack of. I’m not sure why you say that’s siloed, but the argument the author makes is that these shared interests don’t exist anymore which they noticed because of the lack of aesthetics around them, since shared interests usually generate a set of aesthetics. Imagine a group of D&D players who then decide to start role playing in costumes, and invent the idea of cosplay. They hold conventions, etc where they show up to celebrate their shared interest in D&D and usually dress up in certain costumes which emerges as the cosplay aesthetic. In this case the shared interest, D&D forms the sub culture, and the costumes forms the aesthetic based on that subculture. Now, say no one is playing D&D anymore, and a few decades pass, and suddenly the cosplay aesthetic sees a resurgence. People are dressing in those same costumes, but no one participating in this aesthetic has heard of D&D anymore. That’s what the author sees. Aesthetics that exist almost entirely independent of any subcultures (which could also be based on shared interests). And the author implicitly stipulates that most shared interests (subcultures) would lead to aesthetics, so the lack of such aesthetics indicates to the author a lack of subcultures. The author arrives from the outside in, but their argument is entirely around the lack of shared interests and has nothing to do with the aesthetics, other than being an entryway into subcultures.