I have a major problem with this article - namely that the thesis seems to be that hipsters are necessary because they create new and unconventional culture for everyone else to enjoy.
The first problem with this argument is that this isn't true. Hipsters borrow aspects of other cultures and then apply them to their own lives to create some ironic clusterfuck of a persona. The individuals being referred to in this article are not 'hipsters', although maybe the problem is that their really isn't a definition of hipster so it's wide open for interpretation.
But my bigger problem is the stereotype being made about both culture and those who create it. According to this article (and certainly the pictures used to illustrate who hipsters are), only Brooklyn loft-dwellers who drink PBR can be cultural revolutionaries. But then how do you explain someone like Dr. Dre? He clearly had a remarkable impact on every aspect of culture from clothing to music to language. But by no definition of the word is Dr. Dre a 'hipster'.
Which goes back to my earlier point - what is a hipster? According to the author, "the real hipster is desperate to remain one step ahead of convention, to make art from life and life from art." And to be honest, that sounds like a pretty fulfilling lifestyle. Unfortunately, these people are not 'hipsters' - they're avant gardes. Hipsters are just the wannabes. So even though this may be what the author is talking about when he talks about hipsters, it's not what the rest of us are talking about. Although now that I think of it, his position sounds like one a hipster would take.
© 2013 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation