Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Why Hating on Hipsters Makes You Look Stupid

            We all know the routine: you smirk condescendingly at the arty young adult with the glasses and the tattoos, or assume that everything he or she does is “ironic”—scare quotes included. You roll your eyes. You scoff. You make some sort of generalization on the way to your sweet new condo in Williamsburg: “We’re not walking fast enough for the hipsters.”
            I laugh to think I might be the first to point out to you that if it wasn’t for hipsters, your snazzy $2.2 million condo wouldn’t exist in the first place. Who are you, dear reader, to talk shit on an entire subculture that you can’t even clearly identify or define while you yourself have been swayed to wear tight, high-waisted pants, oversized beanies, or large-framed glasses? Are you going to just subsume the elements of their culture that mainstream America okayed and then slander them to death for, say, growing their armpit hair, being vegan, or gentrifying the very next neighborhood you’re going to move into?
            I happen to think the general hate of hipsters indicates something much, much bigger. I don’t believe any subculture has been so antagonized since the first punk rockers—who, as it turns out, were doing something truly important, destroying and laying foundations for new subcultures to exist, that everyone might find a place to belong. Johnny Rotten and the Sex Pistols were famously booed off talk shows, spat on, and even exiled from England. Sure, they were “obnoxious” in their outright rejection of societal norms. Punks were unhygienic to an extreme that put hippies to shame, spitting in people’s faces and giving them pink eye (as happened to Siouxsie Sioux and Adam Ant). They glorified the Id, punching and pushing each other in mosh pits in clothing indicative of their subversive sexual preferences. They had outlandish haircuts and wild, self-aware make up that completely defied what the contemporary standards demanded: bad hygiene equals bad manners. Try and fit in. Comb your hair. Sit like a lady. Punk rock deliberately and loudly defied all that, giving room for those othered by society to other society in return—that is, a community for freaks to belong to cemented by a common abstract enemy: the status quo.
Hipsters are a breath of fresh air after the stagnant remnants of seventies through nineties subcultures. We all know punk is dead: it’s no longer rebellious, no longer menacing, and thus no longer culturally relevant. Goth is dead too, as it always wanted to be—trapped in a feedback loop of masochism, narcissism, elitism, and nostalgia. Rave culture is said to be making a comeback, but I maintain that “rave” is just another dirty four-letter word, a euphemism for a vapid and obnoxious trend with no manifesto but PLUR. The acronym has become a symbol for sketchy pills that dissolve identities and make everyone act identically trashy; stupid bracelets with rave pseudonyms spelled on them called kandy; parties with music so bad you’d have to be loaded to enjoy them. Rave culture never should have existed in the first place. In fact, remember the nineties all together? Remember Clueless and Britney Spears? The important musicians killed themselves or sold out, or just lost steam entirely. After the militant social pressure to straighten your hair, wear contacts, and have your ass crack show every time you bent over, the stark contrast of the hipster aesthetic—an acquired taste for me at first—stands for personal liberation.
            Hipster culture allows anyone to rock an unconventional aesthetic. For the first time, boys make passes at girls who wear glasses in the mainstream. Hipsters never sought mainstream attention to my knowledge—they gained it just by being so outlandish in their “no rules” aesthetic. Hipsters pioneered the nerd revolution. They made it okay to be who you are, or to be who you aren’t if you’re riding that wave with any self-awareness. Anything can be cool if you both mean it sincerely and don’t take yourself too seriously.
Hipsters really began back in the forties, when white middle-class youths sought to emulate the black jazz musicians they so adored, but lost cultural relevance until about a decade ago. What’s so important about this subculture is that it has no agreed-upon definition. What is a “hipster”? Technically, when the term was first coined in the early nineteen hundreds, “hip” meant “in the know”, and the suffix “-ster”, like in “spinster” or “youngster,” was added to it to describe a person who fits in with the root adjective. So “hipster” means someone who is in the know. But what about now? What does “hipster” mean to you, today? Is it an aesthetic that you can compromise by disdain for people who transgress the boundaries of what is socially acceptable more than you do? Is it a novel attitude? Is there a manifesto? I live in Brooklyn, and even I don’t really know what a “hipster” truly is. I know one when I see one, but I couldn’t possibly define one. That, my friends, is what I believe you find so annoying. It is a culture so free, so ambiguous, you can’t even put your finger on it. Anything goes. That is also why I know what the hipsters are doing is important. It’s such a dynamic subculture that I don’t foresee its stagnation so much as its transformation, just as it has been doing for the past several years. It has even revitalized dead subcultures heretofore mentioned and even spat upon, such as goth and *gulp* rave culture—though, thank my pagan deities, with irony, nostalgia, and beats at 1/3 of the speed. In fact, the sea punk idea of raves is refreshingly idealistic. It bears mercifully little resemblance to the horrible “Happy Hardcore” of my youth.
In my opinion, hipsters seem not so much to know what’s hip as to create what’s hip. Therein lies their power, which you find so mysterious that you hate them for it. This puts them literally at the avant-garde. Your repulsion means they’re doing it right.
So, to conclude, whatever hipsters are, they’re revitalizing our culture merely by making us question ourselves. They maintain dynamics in their ineffability. Perhaps this is because “hipster” refers to more of an attitude than an aesthetic with a rigid manifesto, but even then it vacillates wildly between ironic apathy and political dedication (veganism, body hair, et cetera). They encourage paradox and a healthy degree of hypocrisy. Hipsters are keeping American culture fresh—even you have adapted some of their aesthetics, albeit at least half a decade later. Really this reflects poorly on you, and not on those scapegoats bravely and haphazardly carving the way for us at the forefront of the battlefield of cultural development. Considering non-hipsters co-opt the hipster aesthetic, move to neighborhoods gentrified and made safe and desirable by hipsters, and throw the term “hipster” at arty people with the same calculated abandon that scaremongers threw “Communist” at actors, activists, and transgressors not so long ago, you look damn stupid when you hate on hipsters. Damn stupid, and damn closed-minded.

13 comments:

  1. idk. as a subculture (in general) I do find them a bit annoying. this really...

    http://lookatthisfuckinghipster.tumblr.com/

    from the book, which I def recommend, shit is hilarious...

    'I do not hate hipsters. Let me repeat: I do no hate hipsters.

    Now, don't get me wrong. I certainly don't love hipsters. That would be weird, like loving Scientologists or syphillis or somthing. But I don't hate them, either. I think that's important. I simply find the hipster lifestyle to be wildly fascinating. And if htat sounds like I'm being condescending, that's because, yes, I'm being condescending. Duh, of course I am....I just think it's fair, after years and years of everyone making fun of poor white trash, that someone had the courage to stand up and make fun of rich white trash.

    [skipping ahead]

    Everything they do is ironic: from the clothes they wear, to the TV shows they watch, to the stupid facial hair they grow--it's all an endless joke. There's no substance behind any of it. Hipsters rebel against a shallow, materialistic, directionless society by being shallow, materialistic, and directionless. It makes no sense. It's fighting conformity with conformity, not fitting in by fitting in. It just so happens that their specific type of conformity involves looking very silly. It's a community of unfocused people trying to out-silly each other. At the same time, however, they want to be taken seriously....They're philosophers and intellectuals who camouflage themselves as complete buffoons....basically hipsters are clowns---terrible postmodern clowns who don't know any magic (except the "disappearing eight ball trick" trick) and who get all upset and insolent when you point at them and laugh."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This writer sounds not just uneducated on the subject, but altogether lacking in analytical skills. First of all, to compare a group of people to syphilis is indeed hateful, and does not exonerate the writer from his obvious bigotry. Secondly, to refer to hipsters as "white trash" is a poorly masked device to illegitimize everything they do, which is unfair: perhaps their aesthetics (plural) are unconventional, but I don't happen to think they all look bad. That is a cultured standpoint that only proves them right. And even if they were rebelling "against a shallow, materialistic, directionless society by being shallow, materialistic, and directionless," the re-contextualization is everything. Again, I insist that the fact that they receive so much hate for adapting to a different lifestyle where they can glorify whatever they like only proves that we need them.

      I also think the argument that everything they do is ironic is incorrect and invalid. Surely, some of it is, but I think it's more accurate to state that hipsters have found a way to embrace guilty pleasures and romanticize whatever quirks they are attracted to, be it fixie bikes or handlebar mustaches, grandma sweaters or cat ears, dressing in circuit drag or dressing like a grandmother. In fact, your response leads me to believe you didn't actually absorb any of this article at all.

      Delete
  2. 'First of all, to compare a group of people to syphilis is indeed hateful,compare a group of people to syphilis is indeed hateful,'

    but pretty damn funny. you have to admit!

    'and does not exonerate the writer from his obvious bigotry'

    aka bigotry of bad taste.

    'This writer sounds not just uneducated on the subject, but altogether lacking in analytical skills.'

    actually the book is really a photo book. therein lies the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. '

    'In my opinion, hipsters seem not so much to know what’s hip as to create what’s hip. Therein lies their power, which you find so mysterious that you hate them for it. This puts them literally at the avant-garde. Your repulsion means they’re doing it right.'

    actually this is a stretch. If ppl come off as a know at all, and you really don't agree with them, or their style, then does that mean you're 'jealous' of them? Or just calling it what it is...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never implied or indicated anything about jealousy. You brought that up. So you tell me. The "avant-garde" as defined by Clement Greenberg in "The Avant-Garde and Kitsch" in 1939, points out that "avant-garde" is the name of the foremost, frontmost troop in an army. I think the fact that you and others reject everything about hipsters and can't pinpoint why indicates that they are, indeed, avant-garde. As for people conforming to it--that has been true of all subcultures, always. Not everyone can be a leader.

      Delete
    2. we don't have to flame out here...but by saying 'which you find so mysterious that you hate them for it.' what does that mean then, if not jealousy?

      'I think the fact that you and others reject everything about hipsters and can't pinpoint why indicates that they are, indeed, avant-garde.'

      some men are tall and some men are doctors. means that all tall men are doctors right?

      I should lend you this book. There's actually a whole section entitled 'Is this a Hipster'. Its definitely definable. And for the most part, I agree with homeboy...they are clowns. Don't get me wrong, I think sometimes they are into some real cultural steez, but their attitude and general taste definitely sets me off. For better or for worse it is pretty much what he says it is...ppl finally stepping up to dis rich white trash instead of poor white trash...

      from the book again...

      'As my comedian friend Hannibal Buress says, "Its cool if you have a handlebar mustache, but don't try to talk to me like you don't have a handlebar mustache."'

      I'll add that I'm not jealous of your handlebar mustache. And I don't think at this point in history your handlebar mustache is avant-guard in any way shape or form. Shee-it these mofos prob never even heard of Rollie Fingers.

      Delete
    3. Hey, Smallchange, I want you to know first of all that I don't intend to offend you at all. I really, honestly don't. If I said something that hurt your feelings, well, I am sorry to have hurt your feelings but I am not sorry to be opinionated. You have always known this about me!

      When I say they have power "which you find so mysterious that you hate them for it," I don't mean jealousy, per se, though I'm sure that's the case for a lot of people. People tend to hate what they don't understand--thus people hating the mysterious power of hipsters to direct culture.

      As for your logical fallacy, well, I don't even know how to address that. I find it non-sequitor and not a good debate tactic for someone like me. If you think about it, hipsters are reviled very strongly for lifestyle choices that they don't try to impose upon anyone. I don't see what someone's aesthetic has to do with anyone else, including you, Jim--and by the way, with your funny hats, obscure soul vinyl collection, and abode in Bushwick, I am quite certain that people have misguidedly referred to you as a "hipster" as well, and I think that word should not be a hate word. Is that so damn crazy--that even if someone were to consider you a hipster, that wouldn't have a negative connotation?

      I don't see how people who choose to pursue their interests, especially intellectual or political ones, are trashy. But I guess that makes me white trash. And you, too, for that matter.

      "It's cool if you have a handlebar mustache, but don't try to talk to me like you don't have a handlebar mustache." Really, Jim? Really? Are you in favor of people discriminating based on looks? You, of all people? Is that not just a step below discriminating against people for their ethnicities or religions? Yeah, an aesthetic is a choice, but the choice to look a certain way is not the same as volunteering to give up your basic right to be treated like a human. That's absurd. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. That's more horror than comedy.

      I don't know what this handlebar mustache remark directed at me means at all, but I understand that people go into a debate or discussion with preconceived biases and leave with those biases only being stronger. I wish you could just let down your guard long enough to seriously consider the things I've written here, as I took a long time thinking on the subject and opening myself up to it to come to these conclusions hoping to help the cohesion of arty Brooklynites--arty weirdos everywhere. I don't see how asking you to open your mind to hipsters is an affront to your identity, but identity is just a symbol of a self anyway and you should do your best not to fit in to one.

      Delete
  4. Great post! I agree with much of it even though it's super not my scene. I've also been totally guilty of this at times, but more often I've been the one defending hipsters when others do it. I think the biggest problem- and the easiest to scoff at- is the bandwagon jumping. The line between the subcultural aspects and mainstream-ified qualities and aesthetics is kind of invisible from afar. So in theory that's not the fault of "actual" hipsters (whatever that is, of course), but rather that the aesthetic (which is at times an anti-aesthetic, which is a whole other tangent) is easily co-optable. It is simultaneously subcultural and trendy.

    I also think this is totally astute: "Goth is dead too, as it always wanted to be—trapped in a feedback loop of masochism, narcissism, elitism, and nostalgia." Except I think those are all POSITIVE qualities- at least at times- and I've been doing a lot of writing about that myself. The thing is that there never have been and I'm sure never will be entire neighborhoods populated entirely by goths. (Or ravers, oh man can you imagine?) I think the most relevant comparison to hipsters may be hippies of the 60s and early 70s; as far as I can tell, I think that may be the only instance of a subculture becoming so large that it eventually became practically inseparable from the mainstream.

    Then I get trapped in the argument that mainstream = death, which is really not what I want to be saying at all. Insincerity, lack of conviction, safezone-edginess, that's the bad stuff. Irony has a big role in that stuff too. Certainly everyone can use a bit of irony, whether for humor or coping or fashion, but it can also be a big defense mechanism. The fear of taking oneself too seriously can go so far that it becomes its own mode of expression and actually impedes expressing oneself sincerely. Whew. I'm not implicating you in this, by the way; you mean business and I know it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Vesta! I agree so much with pretty much everything you've just stated. When it comes to bandwagon-jumping, well, I live in Brooklyn so I know my view of hipsters is quite different from yours, but I can say that sometimes people show us things we didn't know we liked, and that throughout history there have been instances of osmosis where people separated by thousands of miles come up with the same idea at the same time. I love thinking that it's because we're psychically connected on some level, though of course that would be a whole huge discussion and I'm not going to get into that just now. I agree that some people jump on band-wagons--but that is not unique to hipsters. Look at punks! Look even at goths! They mostly mimic each other to such an extent that you can tell what subgroup they belong to from a mile away. Not everyone can be a leader. And that's okay. Some people aren't brave or analytical enough to carve their own paths toward their imagos, shrouded in doubt. (There goes having one damn post that doesn't involve Lacan!)

      What I said about goth I said with some endearment, of course: hell, I'm wearing a Bauhaus shirt right now. But it's certainly true that goth is dead. Every time I go to a goth party I feel so jaded, hearing the exact same stuff I listened to all through high school. The biggest exception, of course, is Tamara Sky and others like her who are anti-purists and find ways to remix goth to make it subversive and new. Hipsters can also be credited with this activity.

      I don't think there are entire neighborhoods populated by hipsters--what, the low-income minorities who lived there before with their families just move out as soon as hipsters move in? That's silly. They can seem quite prominent, to be sure, but I imagine it's because they stand out. I think I just made it sound like hipsters are primarily white and I want to add that here in Brooklyn, that's not necessarily the case. I have no statistics for you, but I have friends of all races and genders who are called "hipsters" by the existentially threatened.

      Comparing hipsters to hippies is a good call, but a laborious task because again, some hipsters are crusty and political, and some are apathetic and high-maintenance. And again, they don't exactly live in communes. They do, however, have a sense of community.

      I agree that irony can be a big defense mechanism, but I think we just all assumed that everything ever hipster does is ironic a few years back when someone with a loud mouth and cult following pointed that out and it caught on. It was certainly true of lots of hipsters not that long ago. But there are also hipsters who are sincerely quirky, who didn't aspire to be hipsters, who are just going along with their imposed identities because hey, what are you gonna do? Let your contrarian tendencies control your life? *Implosion*

      I feel you have touched on something extremely important here, Vesta, when you said "The fear of taking oneself too seriously can go so far that it becomes its own mode of expression and actually impedes expressing oneself sincerely." This is why I believe so strongly and with such conviction in vulnerability. I don't believe I have my manifesto from when I was 17 posted on this blog, but I should; I still adhere to much of it to this day, especially pertaining to the conclusion that vulnerability is strength, because it is all-encompassing. But the irony and the fear of vulnerability is NOT unique to hipsters. Not at all, unfortunately.

      Delete
  5. you didn't offend me Kendalle. all good.

    'People tend to hate what they don't understand--thus people hating the mysterious power of hipsters to direct culture.'

    kinda assuming that hipsters direct culture, no? you give them far more credit then I do. Perhaps because I define hipster like I define a yuppie. I think you're using a far more blanket definition for them. To me, most ppl that I consider 'directing culture' I don't define as a hipster. You might but I don't...

    'As for your logical fallacy, well, I don't even know how to address that. I find it non-sequitor and not a good debate tactic for someone like me.'

    the some men are tall/doctors analogy is very on point here. You're taking your opinion that hipsters are 'avant-guard' and pushing it as a fact. Its you're opinion. That is my point.

    'If you think about it, hipsters are reviled very strongly for lifestyle choices that they don't try to impose upon anyone.'

    or, they could be reviled because they can come off as obnoxious clowns at times. whether they're 'imposing' it on others or not, ppl are still going to have an opinion.

    'I don't see how people who choose to pursue their interests, especially intellectual or political ones, are trashy.'

    very simple. Ppl are trashy if they come off trashy, right? I think ppl can do what they want. And then other ppl are very much entitled to their opinion. Pretty basic.

    '"It's cool if you have a handlebar mustache, but don't try to talk to me like you don't have a handlebar mustache." Really, Jim? Really? Are you in favor of people discriminating based on looks? You, of all people? Is that not just a step below discriminating against people for their ethnicities or religions?'

    serious stretch. its called having an opinion. because I think a modern hipster wearing a puffy baseball cap and a handlebar mustache is corny, does that make me racist? Or any kind of ist? Ppl have a right to their opinions. Its not about discrimination, its about taste. or lack thereof.

    'I don't see how asking you to open your mind to hipsters is an affront to your identity'

    its not. you're assuming a lot here. It just means I have an opinion on them. its like Trance music. Is it all bad? probably not, but most of the stuff I've heard I'm not into. Does that mean I'm discriminatory against ppl who like Trance music? No. It just means I have my opinion on it, which I very much have a right to. Same with hipsters. Yes in some ways ppl would mistake me for a hipster, I like vintage, but honestly I'm not trying to rock that aesthetic. Read homeboy's blog. He doesn't dis ppl wearing vintage. Hipsterism, for better or worse, does have certain stereotypes attached to it. Maybe you're trying to break through that with your article, but in the end you have to acknowledge it as well. Its not about discrimination. its about taste.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smallchange, I'm not going to bother to read your response because it's the same circular conversation we've been having for two days. You're only proving my point. But I did get so far as you saying hipsters don't direct culture. That denial borders on a break from reality. Have you walked into Urban Outfitters? Do you know what it was before the hipster craze? Do you look at fashion, or at mainstream people walking around New York? Also, your last bit, which I see now: yes, by hating on hipsters you are discriminating against hipsters. Duh. You should just stop, this is really getting tiresome and annoying.

      Delete
    2. Also, by quoting some moron whose entire career depends on cheap laughs and misspelling everything, you're not really supporting your argument with authority of language. Just a tip: that can really help you in the future. I maintain that the fallacy is a stupid, transparent, failed attack. Yes, I am STATING and not OPINING that the hipsters are avant-garde BECAUSE they DO direct culture. Are you going to make the same two arguments again and again because you haven't even really been absorbing my responses? You think hipsters are obnoxious and you admitted yesterday via chat it's because you're more of a snob than them. Meanwhile you fit many people's definition of hipster yourself. So you hate on people for being elitist because you're more elitist than they are. Are you sure that's not a threat to your identity? I don't believe you.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete