Roughnessism

Roughnessism is a term used in contemporary aesthetics and critical theory to describe a cluster of viewpoints that valorize roughness—textural irregularity, unfinished surfaces, and procedural improvisation—as sources of meaning, beauty, and ethical significance. Proponents treat roughness as a counter to polished modern production, arguing that visible imperfection reveals process, care, and human involvement, and that it can resist homogenization and commodification.

The term is not a formal, tightly defined school, but rather a label that appears in design criticism, art discourse, and online theory discussions. It is often linked to debates around wabi-sabi, material realism, and neo-pragmatist aesthetics, while emphasizing roughness as a primary value rather than mere backdrop. Critics and observers note that roughness can function as a critique of excessive refinement in culture and industry, inviting a reconsideration of materiality, labor, and time.

Core tenets commonly associated with roughnessism include an emphasis on material tactility, visible making traces, and irregular or asymmetrical forms. In art and architecture, this translates to exposed joinery, weathered textures, and deliberately imperfect surfaces; in graphic design or media, to grain, artefact-like presentation, and unpolished typography. In broader ethical or social terms, roughness can be linked to resilience, improvisation, and community-based making.

Roughnessism also faces criticisms. Detractors argue that the concept can be vague, romantically essentialist, or co-opted as branding. There is concern it may romanticize hardship or obscure safety and durability concerns when applied uncritically. As a developing discourse, roughnessism remains contested and evolving across disciplines.