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
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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