WTF is a "hipster"?
dirty
93 Posts
Is it the new term for "posers"? I know I sound old. I'm 33 and I like art and sneaks (not the skittle kind) and always have. does that make me a hipster? 
Comments
As far as I know, hipsters originally were guys in the late 50s to early 60s who wore goatess and sunglasses and frequented jazz clubs. So it's just the same as everything else, a recycled word that once meant something and nowadays doesn't.
This is one of the most depressing things i've read in a long time.
Yeah ... I suppose Adbusters is rarely the place to turn when you want read something cheerful. And I do think the article paints a very black and white picture of a phenomenon that clearly is chock full of grey areas. But the author makes some good points.
Yea, I mean it's well written and all, but at the end of the day it is just a bunch of people following a trend, is it all that bleak? very insightful though.
Most of them are decent enough people I'm sure, but in the end who cares. How are people asking what a hipster is STILL?? See that guy walking down the street that looks like he's in a indie rock band? That guy is a hipster, and yeah, he probably is in a band.
Flappers liked being flappers. They called themselves flappers. Flapper set trends a broke rules. Flappers are the exact opposite of Hipsters.
Hipsters hate being called hipsters and will deny that they are hipsters.
Personally I don't hate hipsters. I don't really care is all.
What's funny about the adbusters article, is that adbusters itself is nothing more than vapid posturing. It's a fusking magazine dedicated to deriding capitalism, no? They had that whole debacle where they put out sneakers that were manufactured in sweatshops. Adbusters is bleak because their whole shit is lame. Adbusters is a hipster.
As of now, hipster seems to be the word that people use to dismiss other people. "He's got all those bomb records, but he's just a hipster." I think when Gaslamp Killer first came up in discussion on here he was labeled a hipster by a lot of people who later changed their tune after some key posters chimed in. Sometimes it says a lot more about the person using it than the person being labeled.
In all honesty I sorta do know, but I see some of the so called "streetwear" brands out there kicking the so called "hipster" in the head meanwhile the representation of the hipster in question is also the same person who is paying $70-$100 to buy their crappy 1-color t-shirts.
Guilty.
It is ironic, or perhaps very appropriate, to see that article in Adbusters. That magazine is so wound up inside of itself it's ridiculous. They use the tools of those whom they criticize so effectively that the boundaries quickly blurred. That was interesting for the first couple of issues but soon became just boring. And when the price kept climbing up (what is it ... $12 now?) it was difficult to see the point of the whole thing besides just making $ to intellectually and visually masturbate. Sounds pretty "hipster" to me, according to their definition anyway.
I do think the article was rather insightful but they took it way too far. It serves as a decent introduction for people who have no idea what is meant by the term, but it paints with too broad of a stroke. Every member of a rock band rock band, every musician who uses a sample, everyone who wears a fun t-shirt, everyone who goes to a gallery ... they're all completely shallow automatons? And is this so unique? So every hippie in the 60s was a "real" hippie? Noone was just going along with the fashion? Eh.
Really, you think? I always thought the record-collecting, cargo-short (and Polo) wearing, New Balance-rocking demographic was the antithesis of hipster.
75% of people interviewed in that video are straight up definitions of hipsters.
Mock it show more jealousy than real analysis..
Cosign.
Calling out hipsters is the new hipster thing to do.
Not nearly as seriously as they take themselves.
Saying - full circle. What was once square is now hip and what was once hip is probably now square. Cycle o' life, baby.