Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Waxing poetic on the origin of Cap’n Crunch
Someday, somebody will like it, maybe?
It’s called Dream Logic for a reason.
Dear Hipster:
What has had a greater effect on defining what it means to be a 21st-century American hipster: movies and TV, music, or something else entirely?
— AJ
That’s a bit like asking, ‘Who is smarter, a particle physicist or a US Supreme Court justice?’ You could go back and forth endlessly and never formulate an accurate answer, because the criterion of distinction isn’t a certain quantum of “smartness,” it’s the possession of (usually a tremendous amount of) particular knowledge. For sure, smartness enters into the equation, because both of them boast the ability to absorb and make use of a vast body of highly specialized information, which in turn requires a substantial degree of cleverness. Thus, the question is fundamentally flawed because it makes the wrong inquiry.
Moreover, the question would be doomed from the start because of unfair stereotyping. In our society, not all knowledge is perceived equally, which is rather unfortunate. You might imagine someone with a functionally encyclopedic knowledge of breakfast cereal. Picture a person capable of waxing poetic on everything from trivia about the origin of Cap’n Crunch (invented by a woman from New Hampshire based on her grandmother’s recipe for butter and brown sugar over rice) to the socioeconomic and physical importance of a balanced breakfast. The brainpower necessary to carry around and “use” (i.e. find a reason to work it into any conversation, however inconvenient) this wealth of information is patently obvious, yet there’s no such thing as a Nobel Prize for trivia.
I think that’s a grave injustice, and not solely because I fancy myself a shoo-in for such an award if the prize-giving committee ever got around to awarding it. Privileging one body of knowledge over another smacks of elitism, and it sends the unsavory message that acquiring knowledge for its own sake is a waste of time.
But, you might be wondering, what does all this have to do with the formative influences on modern hipster psychology? Similar to the “who’s smarter” argument, asking if hipster style is more defined by audio, visual, or some other media asks the wrong question, because it assumes the truth of a major premise, to wit, that hipster behaviors are shaped by outside forces. In reality, it may be the other way around.
You can think of this in terms of economics. No self-respecting producer would develop a movie designed to appeal to hipsters if there were no hipsters to watch the movie. In actuality, the only way the movie producer knows how to solicit hipsters is by looking at hipsters, figuring out what they want to watch, and then giving them what they want. I mean, yeah, could somebody spend $100 million dollars making some crazy hipster movie thinking someday, somebody will like it, maybe? Of course, but it wouldn’t be a good decision. That kind of logic only works in Field of Dreams and movies very loosely based in some small part on Field of Dreams.
When you boil the question down to its essence, you have to realize that hipsters aren’t cultural products, they are cultural producers. It is not that more and more people are clamping on to some sort of hipster identity based on what they see, hear, and read. Instead, the world has gradually become more and more hipster-shaped in recent years, and we shouldn’t confuse cause with effect.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Waxing poetic on the origin of Cap’n Crunch
Someday, somebody will like it, maybe?
Waxing poetic on the origin of Cap’n Crunch
Someday, somebody will like it, maybe?
It’s called Dream Logic for a reason.
Dear Hipster:
What has had a greater effect on defining what it means to be a 21st-century American hipster: movies and TV, music, or something else entirely?
— AJ
That’s a bit like asking, ‘Who is smarter, a particle physicist or a US Supreme Court justice?’ You could go back and forth endlessly and never formulate an accurate answer, because the criterion of distinction isn’t a certain quantum of “smartness,” it’s the possession of (usually a tremendous amount of) particular knowledge. For sure, smartness enters into the equation, because both of them boast the ability to absorb and make use of a vast body of highly specialized information, which in turn requires a substantial degree of cleverness. Thus, the question is fundamentally flawed because it makes the wrong inquiry.
Moreover, the question would be doomed from the start because of unfair stereotyping. In our society, not all knowledge is perceived equally, which is rather unfortunate. You might imagine someone with a functionally encyclopedic knowledge of breakfast cereal. Picture a person capable of waxing poetic on everything from trivia about the origin of Cap’n Crunch (invented by a woman from New Hampshire based on her grandmother’s recipe for butter and brown sugar over rice) to the socioeconomic and physical importance of a balanced breakfast. The brainpower necessary to carry around and “use” (i.e. find a reason to work it into any conversation, however inconvenient) this wealth of information is patently obvious, yet there’s no such thing as a Nobel Prize for trivia.
I think that’s a grave injustice, and not solely because I fancy myself a shoo-in for such an award if the prize-giving committee ever got around to awarding it. Privileging one body of knowledge over another smacks of elitism, and it sends the unsavory message that acquiring knowledge for its own sake is a waste of time.
But, you might be wondering, what does all this have to do with the formative influences on modern hipster psychology? Similar to the “who’s smarter” argument, asking if hipster style is more defined by audio, visual, or some other media asks the wrong question, because it assumes the truth of a major premise, to wit, that hipster behaviors are shaped by outside forces. In reality, it may be the other way around.
You can think of this in terms of economics. No self-respecting producer would develop a movie designed to appeal to hipsters if there were no hipsters to watch the movie. In actuality, the only way the movie producer knows how to solicit hipsters is by looking at hipsters, figuring out what they want to watch, and then giving them what they want. I mean, yeah, could somebody spend $100 million dollars making some crazy hipster movie thinking someday, somebody will like it, maybe? Of course, but it wouldn’t be a good decision. That kind of logic only works in Field of Dreams and movies very loosely based in some small part on Field of Dreams.
When you boil the question down to its essence, you have to realize that hipsters aren’t cultural products, they are cultural producers. It is not that more and more people are clamping on to some sort of hipster identity based on what they see, hear, and read. Instead, the world has gradually become more and more hipster-shaped in recent years, and we shouldn’t confuse cause with effect.
Comments