ilovefuzz.com

dubkitty wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Where do peeps like Warhol, Lou Reed, and the Sonic Youth/Swans/etc. fit on this sliding scale?

they don't, IMO. inherent in the "hipster" classification is the connotation that the designees don't actually do anything of creative worth themselves, just sit in judgement over other people's work. that's part of why they're "sters," not just "hip." their "hipness" is acquired from without, dig?

Right, but where does that square with the entire Warhol-ian aesthetic of "mass reproduction?"

Ala the Campbell's cans, the Marilyn screens, and so forth. I'd throw down that Warhol was encouraging the hipster by embracing and giving artistic merit to the notion of ironic(and/or purposeless) recycling of imagry.

On the other hand, fuck it. Who cares? Hipsters trivialize everything... And that's yucky.

OK, now you're gonna make me articulate a justification for the Warhol aesthetic, which i've never actually done, having accepted it as valid as i've done with much pre-1965 modern art. i don't think that Warhol's work was about recycling of imagery. i think Warhol was about the idea that the process of production in the 20th century had become as important if not more important than the content, and i think that the history of the arts after 1965 proved him right. what are the fine OR popular arts now but a celebration of process over substance, of digital 3D visual EFX and AutoTune and spectacular visual stunts in the museums all of which say nothing other than "look at me"? IMO Warhol's art was the expression of McLuhan's garbled philosophy, that the medium was now itself the message and thus that Art was dead. Warhol, contrary to what a lot of folks believe, had a heart and a point; he may have seemed clinical and cruel to the denizens of the Factory, but he gave them a home. and that favor came back and shot him in the chest, nearly to death. that's far different from the hipster ethos that Art is whatever they say it is, or more accurately isn't, and which cares for nothing.

Hipsturd.

dubkitty wrote:they don't, IMO. inherent in the "hipster" classification is the connotation that the designees don't actually do anything of creative worth themselves, just sit in judgement over other people's work. that's part of why they're "sters," not just "hip." their "hipness" is acquired from without, dig?

I couldn't have put it anymore beautifully. We should be friends.

Hipsters don't exist.

fiddelerselbow wrote:Hipsters don't exist.

They're an urban legend. Like the yeti, or north dakota.

Current hipster trend- Hating hipsters.

Ragged Trousers wrote:Current hipster trend- Hating hipsters.

no, thats past. now its a trend among the general populous

Current hipster trend: self-immolation. pass it on.

Current hipster trend- urinary infections.

Interesting, both of those last two involve burning.

Oh, the burnage.

I'd rather light myself on fire than piss it.

D.o.S. wrote:I'd rather light myself on fire than piss it.

...pissing fire...best super power ever?

difficult to sell to the movies, though.