Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hipsters (at least what we mean by that in the US) are seen as a new breed that have emerged in the last 20 years or so. There have always been cool / art-house kids. When someone says ?hipster? to me though what that usually means is a lack of authenticity. A very shallow follower of a mish-mash of trends without any real depth of passion or understanding. Hipsters are obsessed with the appearance and image of things but lack any true conviction or appreciation of anything. Pop culture (to some extent) has always been like that, so there?s nothing new there. What's unusual is they take themselves to be making some sort of counter-culture statement. That and the worship of everything retro. In the past being counter-culture was about expressing a new / fringe aesthetic or philosophy not some asinine regurgitation of the past.

Definitely not crusty - more Pulp and St Martins and fanzines than whirlygig and dogs on strings.


and LondonMix, how on earth do you determine a lack of authenticity just by looking at someone? And if that's the criterion for judgment, then those old school art house types are just as guilty - have you never listened to Common People?

The word 'hipster' has been popularised by a small but powerful group of London journos/musos/fashonistas who, wanting to burnish their impeccable Ny-Lon credentials, have imported it. Five years ago or less, 'hipster' was really only used in the US. What's wrong with the lovely, old-fashioned and instantly recognisable '(Shoreditch) Twat' or 'trendy'? I loathe the word (as I do 'cool' and 'guys'.) When The Daily Mail and its ilk use 'hipster' you know its time is well past its prime.

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hipsters (at least what we mean by that in the US)

> are seen as a new breed that have emerged in the

> last 20 years or so. There have always been cool

> / art-house kids. When someone says ?hipster? to

> me though what that usually means is a lack of

> authenticity. A very shallow follower of a

> mish-mash of trends without any real depth of

> passion or understanding. Hipsters are obsessed

> with the appearance and image of things but lack

> any true conviction or appreciation of anything.

> Pop culture (to some extent) has always been like

> that, so there?s nothing new there. What's

> unusual is they take themselves to be making some

> sort of counter-culture statement. That and

> the worship of everything retro. In the past

> being counter-culture was about expressing a new /

> fringe aesthetic or philosophy not some asinine

> regurgitation of the past.



or to summarise, wankers.

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What were all those Covent Gdn dwellers in the 80s

> who all (male and female) had old style wedgie

> hairdos & wore waxed DMs, black 501s with thin

> sweaters (tucked in!) and RayBans called? (apart

> from @#$%& woody)


Erm.....


Bros ?

On a corner of Hoxton st. two nights ago I encountered two young heavily bearded chaps who would probably be hipster/lumbo types when fully clothed but they were each wearing tight, shiny, matching shorts and vests over their skinny frames and were sweating a lot, they looked like athlete hostages who had been chained to a radiator for a month.


"That's your fastest 5k ever" said one, "Great" said the other.


*shudders*

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
    • Thanks so much. Yes I have. Really appreciate your kindness in replying. Thank you.
    • Have you posted on Nextdoor? There's a big cat community on there. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...