The hipster culture isn't dangerous, doesn't really make a statement, and is barely even subcultural. It is, essentially, an elitist art culture made by kids who can't afford to be in the high art crowd.
Heck, I barely consider it different from the mainstream.
However, the main problem right now is that anger has been taken over by the mainstream against itself. At this point in time, the mainstream is not a single voice of conformity. The mainstream is, rather, a voice divided. To rebel against two different voices is virtually impossible.
When the punks came out in Britain, they were rebelling against a largely-single-voiced government and the death of the simplistic rock into the orchestrated grandiose stadium rock. When the youth political movement of the 60s came out, they were rebelling against a war that had been going on for 3 years. The hippies dropped out long before that and were against the hegemony of the popular culture.
Right now, I would be suprised if a strong, significant, and different subculture started making a big appearance. Hell, even Burning Man is many voices divided and unified. Besides, thats just a conglomeration of all subcultures.
Even modern high art is controversial. What with "piss christ," Mapplethorpe, and various internet gimmicks trying to offend in the most lazy ways possible, its hard to rebel when most attitudes are already there.
Is Santarchy brutally weird? The zombie walk? Doing branding as performance art? Hell, even the last one was trumped by G.G. Allin in the '80s and Bob Flanagan in the 90s. Are freak shows passe? I mean, Flores-Williams sure talks a lot of shit, but he poses no real ideas dubbing him just another whiny hipster.
.............
On the other hand, he has a point as there is no significant subculture right now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-15 06:17 pm (UTC)The hipster culture isn't dangerous, doesn't really make a statement, and is barely even subcultural. It is, essentially, an elitist art culture made by kids who can't afford to be in the high art crowd.
Heck, I barely consider it different from the mainstream.
However, the main problem right now is that anger has been taken over by the mainstream against itself. At this point in time, the mainstream is not a single voice of conformity. The mainstream is, rather, a voice divided. To rebel against two different voices is virtually impossible.
When the punks came out in Britain, they were rebelling against a largely-single-voiced government and the death of the simplistic rock into the orchestrated grandiose stadium rock. When the youth political movement of the 60s came out, they were rebelling against a war that had been going on for 3 years. The hippies dropped out long before that and were against the hegemony of the popular culture.
Right now, I would be suprised if a strong, significant, and different subculture started making a big appearance. Hell, even Burning Man is many voices divided and unified. Besides, thats just a conglomeration of all subcultures.
Even modern high art is controversial. What with "piss christ," Mapplethorpe, and various internet gimmicks trying to offend in the most lazy ways possible, its hard to rebel when most attitudes are already there.
Is Santarchy brutally weird? The zombie walk? Doing branding as performance art? Hell, even the last one was trumped by G.G. Allin in the '80s and Bob Flanagan in the 90s. Are freak shows passe? I mean, Flores-Williams sure talks a lot of shit, but he poses no real ideas dubbing him just another whiny hipster.
.............
On the other hand, he has a point as there is no significant subculture right now.