Hipsters

[clyde]

The thing I don't like about clyde's definition is that it seems to basically be saying "I'm cool, you're not". If you think you're cool, great. If you think you're not, great. But if you think you are cool and need the rest of the world to know it by using words like hipster, then I dunno. It seems like it shouldn't matter. Saying that people who aren't hipsters are squares sound rather arrogant to me. And for that matter, I'm not even sure what square means. I can only assume in this context that because hipster is good and a square is not a hipster, a square is bad. That's how I'm reading all of this anyway. If I am misinterpreting things, someone please tell me because frankly I am lost.

I don't see why thinking that I am cool necessitates that others are not. It's true that I think there are some people who are not cool, but I do think it's hypothetically possible for us all to be cool. That's the premise for Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure if I'm not mistaken.

As far as hipsters versus squares goes, this is how I see it. Squares are pretty much the status-quo, if you don't believe that tere is a status-quo, then I got nothing for you. Hipsters are the people that look beyond the art they are supposed to like (popular art) and find art that they like for reasons beyond being accepted by the majority. So think of hipsters and squares this way as I explain further.

There is nothing inherently superior about being a hipster and nothing inherently wrong with being a square, but they are opposing views. One thinks that popularity increases the value of art while the other thinks it decreases the value. When I say that using "hipster" as a pejorative means that you are square, I'm saying that the willingness to accuse someone else of being lesser because they don't like something that's popular and do give more credit to something that is outside the mainstream, then they are likely coming from the perspective of the squares. It doesn't mean that they get a brand and can never change or anything; it just means that they are revealing their dominant perspective on the hipster/square spectrum.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_(slang)

[Patrick R]

And your place on the hipster/square spectrum is important to you?

[clyde]

And your place on the hipster/square spectrum is important to you?

Some aspects of it, yes. I identify more with the hipster side than the square side. Honestly, I wouldn't care so much if being called a hipster wasn't immediately assumed to be a pejorative. It seems like popular culture (the squares) have managed to create a circumstance where people should be ashamed for having idiosyncratic tastes. I am aware that when I recommend bands, games, and art I like, I am likely to be accused of only liking it because it's different than the normal rather than being complimented on developing an appreciation of something abnormal. The same thing is happening either way, but it often feels like expressing sincere interest is considered to be an offense in itself if it doesn't agree with the norms. Another thing is that I do feel that something is lost when a piece of art becomes popular. I think more is gained, but expressing an appreciation for the rarity of appreciation is immediately considered to be elitist. If I just felt that I was the only one being influenced by this zeitgeist, I would probably not care as much, but the way I perceive things is that when hipsters identify a new hawtness and promote it, or if have an appreciation for that phase of popularity; they are insulted for it and that seems offensive to me.

I also have square tendencies. Like I mentioned before, I enjoy the enjoyment of popular video games because they are popular. A big reason I enjoyed Frozen was that it was popular. But I don't see that form of appreciation being attacked very often (actually, I do, but it comes in the form of "what a hipster") and when I do, I'll proclaim "Squares4Life!"

[Bjorn]

Being hip is cool.  Being insufferable is not.  The problem is a lack of proper terms and definitions to clarify the two. 

[RubixsQube]

I am not trying to dismiss clyde's personal identity. Clyde, you understand, I support whatever personal choices you want to have about art and society and culture. I don't resent hipsters. I am going to say that again. I don't. Resent. Hipsters. Perhaps this is tough because you may have some version of me in your head based on the posts I've made here. I've got all of the signs of hipster-dom, and have been labelled that throughout my entire adulthood. I've done the things a hipster should do. 

 

The thing is, I am just putting forward the idea that being cool should not be because you seek out the abnormal, or the different, but rather because you seek things out to begin with. If you're being counterculture because you have something to say, say it. But if you're being counterculture just because it's counterculture, well, where does that end? I want art. I want progression, and I want the world to make things that are different, and fight predominant viewpoints. I just don't want irony. I want the core reason that people do things to be because it's helpful, or kind, or good for society. Not because it raises their coolness level. I don't believe that something loses any value if other people like it. I want people to be able to do what they want, and enjoy things that they want to enjoy, and that's been my argument throughout this thread. I don't consider that a ridiculous idea, Twig. 

 

Ok, I'm going to go back and re-read what I've written. I'm sorry if my posts have been personally attacking clyde. I don't mean him any harm, except that I just feel pretty strongly about the cult of cool after spending my life around people who seem like nothing matters unless they put it up on instagram, or find the correct gif for their tumblr, or just finds some way to share their authenticity. I really strive to do things because I want to do them, instead of doing things because of their perceived coolness by others. This sentiment has perhaps gotten way mixed up in an otherwise civil thread. I'll see myself to the door! 

[ariskany_evan]

I had no idea that this was such a lost cause. Am I seriously the only self-identified hipster?

Am I the last willing remnant of the counter-culture tradition?

 

In middle school I stopped self-identifying as a hippie (I was DEEP into a jam-band phase...) once I realized that I was constantly struggling to tell people what KIND of hippie I was.  It's a sisyphean feat to try and reclaim the meaning of hipster, which I think is a word even more nebulous than hippie.

 

Also, isn't wanting counter-culture something to be identifiable as a group just making it a part of culture?  Counter-culture to me is something ineffable, always on the fringes.  Almost never applicable to a person or movement for any set amount of time.  Most certainly not something anyone can claim to be a part of in the moment.

 

Side note:  On St Patty's Day, a double-decker bus full of men drove through my neighborhood.  They all pointed and shouted "HIPSTERS!"  They thought it was a moment worthy of high-fives.  It's a pretty harmless thing to say since I feel the term lacks any punch due to its nebulosity, but I still had hopes that the bus full of people who get joy out of putting other people down would just crash a little.  No fatalities or anything.  Just that that unwarranted burst of negativity would come back and touch them all.

[Twig]

I disagree with the idea that identifying as a hipster (or any other thing, really) is equivalent to declaring yourself a part of that group. This is outside the context of the current conversation, though, as I'm unsure if clyde (or anyone else, poor clyde is just the center of attention here) wants to be identified as part of a group or not!

 

I also disagree with the idea that being "counter-culture" and also being part of a group that identifies as "counter-culture" is hypocritical in any sense.

[Gormongous]

I disagree with the idea that identifying as a hipster (or any other thing, really) is equivalent to declaring yourself a part of that group. This is outside the context of the current conversation, though, as I'm unsure if clyde (or anyone else, poor clyde is just the center of attention here) wants to be identified as part of a group or not!

I also disagree with the idea that being "counter-culture" and also being part of a group that identifies as "counter-culture" is hypocritical in any sense.

[clyde]

poor clyde is just the center of attention here

Let's not pretend that I don't love it. I'm starting to wonder if the group I should really identify with is the conversational narcissists.

[clyde]

Also, isn't wanting counter-culture something to be identifiable as a group just making it a part of culture? Counter-culture to me is something ineffable, always on the fringes. Almost never applicable to a person or movement for any set amount of time. Most certainly not something anyone can claim to be a part of in the moment.

Does this mean that you don't think there are currently counter-cultures?

Also, I think there is some value in having a group-identity in fashion, perspective and taste that is perceived to be reactionary to the norm.

[Nachimir]

That raises the question about what is really authentic.

 

When someone asks this seriously, that's when I want to destroy everything and maybe even rip my own penis off. It is a weird and arbitrary hurdle that people put in each others way.

[ariskany_evan]

I disagree with the idea that identifying as a hipster (or any other thing, really) is equivalent to declaring yourself a part of that group. This is outside the context of the current conversation, though, as I'm unsure if clyde (or anyone else, poor clyde is just the center of attention here) wants to be identified as part of a group or not!

 

When you choose to self-identify, you're lumping yourself in with a whole bunch of people.  Unless you say you're self-identifying as a wacky zoo-bat balloon kind of person, then maybe you're not identifying as part of a group.  But by calling yourself a hipster you're necessarily throwing yourself into a pool of people.  Clyde's personal definition of hipster sounds inclusive, and his exclamation about being the only self-identified hipster seems to say that he wanted to consider it a group of like-minded people.  All I was saying was that if he wanted to call himself a hipster, he'd have to deal with explaining the sort of hipster he is.

 

 

Does this mean that you don't think there are currently counter-cultures?

 

I don't think I'd know of any current counter-cultures!  I tend to find out about them after they've happened.

 

I feel like the movie "Paris Is Burning" is a great document of something that was counter-culture.  It was a group of people sharing in a cultural activity that was completely against the norms of the society in which it occurred.  It ceased to be a counter-culture, though, once it was co-opted by the likes of Madonna.

 

That cartoon is a great example of the elusiveness of counter-culture.  Many people in the punk scene at the time knew that the movement was over by 1977.  It was co-opted.  It was diffused.  It was marketed.  It became a part of culture.  And it happened almost instantaneously.

 

So I just thought it was counter-intuitive to ascribe being a hipster by Clyde's definition to being a part of the counter-culture tradition.  What Clyde is describing is more like you're a lone hawk (hipster), and you spot a dying animal (counter-cultural movement), so you swoop in and start to eat it.  It will very soon be dead.  Either the vultures (culture) will find the corpse and pick it apart, or it will just rot and disappear.

[prettyunsmart]

When someone asks this seriously, that's when I want to destroy everything and maybe even rip my own penis off. It is a weird and arbitrary hurdle that people put in each others way.

 

I didn't ask it expecting anyone to have an answer. I asked rhetorically because I think it's an empty concept. Arguing whether someone wants to look authentic or is actually being authentic just seems like a waste of time. 

 

Maybe I've been in grad school too long.

[Patrick R]

Counter cultural was a term that meant a lot more when there was more of a monoculture. There's no equivalent of Michael Jackson's Thriller or the season finale of M*A*S*H in 2014. I think movies are maybe the last pop-culture hold-out of big cultural events that a huge percentage of the population participates in, but even that isn't what it used to be.

 

How would one define the difference between a niche sub-culture (say,

) and something counter-cultural the way hardcore punk was?

[clyde]

So I just thought it was counter-intuitive to ascribe being a hipster by Clyde's definition to being a part of the counter-culture tradition. What Clyde is describing is more like you're a lone hawk (hipster), and you spot a dying animal (counter-cultural movement), so you swoop in and start to eat it. It will very soon be dead. Either the vultures (culture) will find the corpse and pick it apart, or it will just rot and disappear.

I don't know if it's ok to feel this way, but I think this sounds awesome. I kind of want to do that. No joke: I also self-identify with buzzards.

A buzzard that eats the remains of counter-cultures sounds so bad-ass to me. I think I want to do that. I mean, it looks like it's dead anyway, no one seems to think of hipsters as more than a pejorative.

" Oh clyde? Yeah, isn't he that counter-culture eating buzzard?"

"That's him."

"Yeah dude, he's cool as fuck."

Is a conversation I may some day hear.

[clyde]

How would one define the difference between a niche sub-culture (say,

) and something counter-cultural the way hardcore punk was?

I don't know, but I think of the hashtagavists, hackers, microtonal musicians, and occupiers as relevant counter-cultures of out time.

[Bjorn]

I don't know, but I think of the hashtagavists, hackers, microtonal musicians, and occupiers as relevant counter-cultures of out time.

 

Some occupiers would probably bristle at being labeled a counter-culture, as they view themselves as representing the vast majority of society, the 99 percent.  That they oppose those with power, money and influence does not mean that they oppose the overall norms of society. 

 

Hashtag activists:  Not a culture.  Not a movement.  An action taken by some people who may be part of a culture or a movement, but better to talk about those specific groups.

 

Microtonal musicions: They may be an opposing force in a particular community, but that's something different than being counter-culture. 

 

Hackers: Similar to the hashtaggers, hacking is something you do.  Lots of hackers are totally pro-dominant culture. 

 

I can think of a lot of interesting groups that stand in opposition to a norm, or a few norms, but those aren't necessarily counter-cultures.  Being a proper counter-culture movement is more than just going against the grain on a couple of issues.  It's about developing a culture-within-a-culture that challenges the very foundation of the parent culture.  The fractured and niche nature of a lot modern groups and movements would seem to make that unlikely to develop. 

 

I'd tend to agree with ariskany_evan.  I'm not sure that we'll ever see another true widespread counter-culture develop, at least in the US.  Or if we do, it's going to come from a marginalized portion of society that no one thinks they can significantly profit from.  Any other group that develops will be quickly assimilated, dissected, and marketed to with their own boutique stores and series of reality TV shows.

[Nachimir]

I didn't ask it expecting anyone to have an answer. I asked rhetorically because I think it's an empty concept. Arguing whether someone wants to look authentic or is actually being authentic just seems like a waste of time. 

 

Then we agree on some level

[Gormongous]

I didn't ask it expecting anyone to have an answer. I asked rhetorically because I think it's an empty concept. Arguing whether someone wants to look authentic or is actually being authentic just seems like a waste of time. 

 

Maybe I've been in grad school too long.

 

Nah, it's not grad school making you think that, although I am in grad school and I think that.

 

It first occurred to me the year I lived in Greece. We went to Epidauros and saw the famous round Tholos temple there, partly rebuilt with new marble. My professor told me that it was currently a political battleground between three different advocacy groups: one that wanted not to interfere with the temple's decay at all, one that wanted to preserve it in its current state, and one that wanted to finish rebuilding it with new marble. All three claimed, quite rightly, that they were preserving the "authenticity" of the temple. I saw then very clearly that "authentic" is the intellectual version of the word "nice". It's an empty word used to decorate positions that appeal to a given party.

[clyde]

I can think of a lot of interesting groups that stand in opposition to a norm, or a few norms, but those aren't necessarily counter-cultures. Being a proper counter-culture movement is more than just going against the grain on a couple of issues. It's about developing a culture-within-a-culture that challenges the very foundation of the parent culture. The fractured and niche nature of a lot modern groups and movements would seem to make that unlikely to develop.

But were't hipsters originally just people who listened to jazz? I doubt that every hipster in the 1940's opposed every norm. I think the idea is that they satisfy their own needs in one part of culture and a sub-culture forms. Then as it develops it's own norms over time, their perspective has more flexibility to accept and encourage ideologies that couldn't grow within square communities. I'm sure that some jazz-listeners were considered to be more or less hip than others, but the sub-culture than forms has it's own symbols and expectations. The sub-culture becomes a place for alternatives.

And just because there now exists D.I.Y. Network on television doesn't meam that there is no longer a D.I.Y. sub-culture. Hmmm. I guess I don't think there is much of a difference between counter-cultures and subcultures except whether or not the sub-culture is reinforcing the norms of their interest area.

[clyde]

Hackers: Similar to the hashtaggers, hacking is something you do. Lots of hackers are totally pro-dominant culture.

I've recently gotten interested in the hacker sub-culture (though I am not deep in it) As I'm learning how to make computer-games, spending time on Reddit and paying attention to the news in the 21st century, I (possibly due to some apophenia) see a thread of culture that fascinates me. The social-techniques of Anonymous and the government techniques reveLed by Edward Snowden; reading some of the history of music-tracker modules and seeing free sequencers on app-stores pop up; just getting a sense of how prrogramming works on a base level and thinking about the omniprescence of computer technology, all these things seem to have a strong connection due to the inherencies of the medium that express themselves. I think it makes for a very interesting sub-culture.

[Badfinger]

I don't know, but I think of the hashtagavists, hackers, microtonal musicians, and occupiers as relevant counter-cultures of out time.

 

hashtag activists are definitely not relevant, and CERTAINLY not a culture in any way. They're just assholes grabbing for attention on the internet. I would know. I spend a lot of time spewing garbage on twitter, but I don't pretend it stands for anything. They're functionally equivalent to two guys in a bar 10 minutes before closing time who found a corner and are telling each other that like, the government just doesn't GET it.

 

I don't know if it's ok to feel this way, but I think this sounds awesome. I kind of want to do that. No joke: I also self-identify with buzzards.

A buzzard that eats the remains of counter-cultures sounds so bad-ass to me. I think I want to do that. I mean, it looks like it's dead anyway, no one seems to think of hipsters as more than a pejorative.

" Oh clyde? Yeah, isn't he that counter-culture eating buzzard?"

"That's him."

"Yeah dude, he's cool as fuck."

Is a conversation I may some day hear.

 

Are you Ford Prefect or something?

[Bjorn]

Oh, there are absolutely sub-cultures, and some very fascinating and interesting ones.  I just don't think those sub-cultures necessarily rise to the level of counter-culture.  Even the hipsters of Jazz age were not themselves inherently a counter-culture, its just that some of them were also visible members of the Beat Generation, which was the wider movement. 

 

A current group I'm fascinated by would be those pushing against the bounds of traditional relationship definitions.  Those who push back against marriage, who promote polyamory or swinging.  Double fascinating as this is going on while a historically ostracized group (homosexuals) are fighting for the right to be able to participate in the traditional norm.  These groups are challenging one of the deepest held beliefs in western culture, the very structure of relationship and family.  And yet I would not describe these people as being part of a counter-culture, because many of them otherwise support the other traditional norms of western society.  They are just challenging this one, specific area.  So interesting sub-culture (and one with thematic ties to previous sub-cultures like Hippies and the Beats), but not a counter-culture movement.

 

It's a bit on the pedantic side, but widening the phrase counter-culture to the way you seem to use it robs it of the ability to accurately describe the larger movements, when you can just use sub-culture or other specific language to describe other groups. 

[James]

There is nothing inherently superior about being a hipster and nothing inherently wrong with being a square, but they are opposing views. One thinks that popularity increases the value of art while the other thinks it decreases the value.

I would posit that a great many people, possibly even the majority, thinks neither of these things, or at least wouldn't identify as doing so.* Are all non-hipsters squares, or are squares a group as specifically-defined as your definition of hipster?

 

* Of course, there are psychological phenomena that cause people to frame their perceptions in terms of social context, and these are unavoidable, even to hipsters. Nevertheless, I encounter plenty of thoroughly forthright opinions counter to the norm from people with pretty much zero stake in any ideas of counter-culture or authenticity or whatever.

[Salacious Snake]

My knee-jerk reaction to the one-upmanship, I-knew-about-it-before-it-was-cool, thing is that it's often just an accidental conversational habit born out of feeling the need to add something related to the topic at hand. Like saying, "Oh, you traveled to San Lorenzo? I go there every summer," can arise from groping around for a way to relate to the story, but then of course it comes out sounding like a shitty brag. I try not to do it; it's more interesting to draw out more about the other person's experience of it than to compare notes.

 

As to hipsters, I don't fuckin' know. I live in a rapidly gentrifying area of Brooklyn, I have a beard, and I'm wearing KangaROOS because they're a kitschy reminder of my childhood in the 80s. I'm sorry? I'm not wearing a trucker hat or louvered sunglasses, so am I in the clear? My pants are slim fit with a fairly low waist, but not in legging territory. I do shop at an overpriced "organic" grocery because it's the one closest to my place.

 

 

I plan on having a dog and a baby by this time next year, which I think are becoming pretty key hipster accessories in my neighborhood. 

 

I don't particularly enjoy being lumped into a group via a dismissive shorthand, but many groups of people have been called far worse things, so I guess I don't have too much to complain about. I don't call myself a gamer either, even though I'm way into games (and go to hipstery art game parties with indie bands in illegal speakeasies). I don't know, it all bothers me a bit but I'm not sure why.

 

And now I've just talked about myself a whole bunch, so I'm definitely an asshole, whatever else you may want to call me.