Portlandia - The Hipster Grows Up

This post is about the "Portlandia" episodes assigned this week.  Feel free to comment on either of the two posts.

To start, this week’s visual entertainment contains a whole host of satirical elements that poke fun at what is conceived as the modern hipster. 

However, one of the most obvious marked differences between the material for this week vs. that of weeks past is the age of the subjects being examined; most of the characters in Portlandia are amongst the “older” generation (at the very least above the age of 30), unlike the young teenagers/20 year olds usually we usually examine.  In this sense, there is no possibility of confusing youth subculture for “hipster” subculture.  

Thus, how does the age of characters on the show affect your perception of the hipster (i.e. does the characters' behavior seem out of place)?  What are some of the differences between the social criticisms that hipsters of this age present vs. those of hipsters of the younger generation?  With regards to some of these social criticisms, do you think that these hipsters are well intentioned in their concerns (think about the scene in which they let the dog on the leash go free)?  If not, then what exactly are the creators of the show trying to say about hipster culture?

Another interesting aspect about the show itself is the creative choices made in how the show is presented.  What do you think of the fact that the show is set up in a sketch-comedy fashion?  Why may have the creators chosen to do this (does it facilitate the satirization of hipster culture)?  If the show did not take place in Portland, what sort of effect do you think that would have on the nature of the characters' behavior?

The show can in some ways be viewed as something of a social experiment; what happens when somebody retains elements of a hipster in their character, but outgrows part of the physical aesthetic of being a hipster (i.e. youth)?  These could all be interesting things to keep in mind when writing your response!

Get off my Lawn!: The Hipster Grows Up

This blog post is about the essays "Irony, sincerity, normcore: Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Foster Wallace and the end of rebellion" by R. Jay Magill Jr., and "On Smarm" by Tom Scocca. Feel free to comment on either of the two blog posts. 

Perhaps not all of you were familiar with the term normcore before reading Magill's essay on it. Here are two entries on Urban Dictionary: 

"A subculture based on conscious, artificial adoption of things that are in widespread use, proven to be acceptable, or otherwise inoffensive. Ultra-conformists. First featured as a fictional population in the webcomic Templar, Arizona, but normcore are totally real."

"The act of deconstructing fashion by purposely dressing blank or dull. What once started as a post-ironic anti-fashion, "purposely uncool" trend by hipsters in an attempt to pull away from the subculture fashion that were becoming commercialized and popular, norm core is quickly becoming a legitimate fashion trend. Characterized by boxy, unflattering jean jackets, oversized sweatshirts, gift shop baseball hats. Anything that looks like it might be featured in a Calvin Klein from 1998, or anything you'd wear around the house on laundry day."

This should give you a good idea, right? l'll give you a concrete example of normcore, an ad campaign by GAP, which was released this summer for their fall collection. Directed by David Fincher. 

FYI: The campaign failed to increase the sales of GAP, and they are clearing everything out with huge discounts. Maybe not everyone wants to dress normal, huh?

On Normcore: 

Magill argues that normcore is the natural development of irony, and therefore of hipster culture. As he states it's a "logical dead end". What  do you think does that mean for hipster culture? 

Normcore is a rejection of the capitalist nature of fashion. A reaction and a critique. Evidence of this development are various DIY activities such as knitting, gardening, and beer brewing. Small and local business grow out of this reaction and find success in their niche. 

Interestingly the author takes a philosophical approach in describing the phenomenon of normcore as a synthesis of irony and sincerity. Irony acts as the thesis of the hipster culture, while sincerity, a reaction to the post-irony phase, works as the antithesis. This means that the ironic performance is balanced out by being sincere, which is evident in the dialectical dynamics of this particular cultural production.  

Do you think being normcore is just another ironic performance or nah? Maybe it's just a reactive move against the rebellious hipster of the last decade? Or as Magill stated it's just another modernist struggle between irony and sincerity and repeats itself cyclically—1989 and now 2014. 

On Smarm:

I would argue that snark is just an expansion of the ironic performance. Being cynic and nasty as an attitude or a mode that frames the negative worldview of the hipster. And of course there is an antithesis to snark—smarm. Scocca describes smarm as performance of seriousness without being substantial. Smarm can be characterized by it's anti-negative sentiment and being nice all the time is the goal. Scocca uses Dave Eggers as an example and describes the features of smarm: virtue, maturity, inclusiveness. Is smarm not just an extension of sincerity?

"Smarm aspires to smother opposition or criticism". So, it's hypocritical to act smarmy, but isn't it the same with being sincere without meaning it really? You're bullshitting your way through life basically. What I found interesting is that smarm let's you have a superior voice over something or someone, while snark is the expression of the alienated (Denby). Do you think that this is a correct assessment? 

Scocca argues that snark is the theory of cynicism and smarm the practice of it? He uses political examples, perhaps you have a similar example for the hipster culture? Are snarkers really just haters, shitting on the world? 

Discuss. 

Hipsters Gone Viral

Hello everyone, for this week’s blog Emma and I are talking about “Hipsters gone viral”.  Emma and I decided to divide our blog posts, so I will be talking about Tumblr, specifically the thread, Look at this F***ing Hipster, and the internet in general as a tool for hipsters.  Comment on either of the posts, and if you are feeling ambitious feel free to comment on both. 

Here is the actual link to the blog. http://lookatthisfuckinghipster.tumblr.com/

Ok, let’s first talk about Tumblr.  To be honest, before this week I didn’t have much exposure to what Tumblr was, but I will attempt to quickly demystify it for everyone. (Expect me to ask someone to explain what Tumblr is in class on Tuesday).  Tumblr is a microblogging website, allowing users to post content to a blog.  The fact that Tumblr is a microblog is important because it allows viewers and bloggers to showcase small amounts of information and content per post.  Twitter is another example of a microblog.  

So before I go any further, here is the first question.  Do you think the internet and microblogs as a whole are a crucial or important aspect of the modern hipster community and if yes, why? Personally, I think the internet is widely important in the modern hipster.  The whole idea of appropriation can be magnified if used in a microblog.  What I mean is various “new” styles and designs are so easily accessed and posted for everyone to see.  Furthermore, what better way to express yourself than through daily blog posts, and artistic pictures.  Then another question emerges and that is about authenticity.  Throughout this semester we have focus a lot about authenticity versus the ungenuine and ironic.  Do you think the hipsters use the internet to showcase authenticity?  Tom in his blog post asked the question, “Is it fair to draw a line between hipster and youth culture?” which I think directly correlates to internet use.  Are the people using Tumblr or Instagram hipsters, or are they just the most recent generation of youths?  

Lastly, in terms of the Tumblr blog, Look at that F***ing hipster, we see a negative view of the hipster.  This blog was not made to glorify hipsters, but to bring them down.  It seems that, although, hipster use of the internet may have increased, anti-hipster use of the internet has increased as well.  Looking at the blog, what posts in particular strike you as being pertinent to what we have discussed in class?  Personally, I thought the vimeo water fight, posted on February 25 (Page 8), is a great example of the “cliched” hipster we so often see.  The video showcases an extremely melodramatic water fight between people, who look very stereotypically hipster.  They are smoking cigars, hiding in trees, and overall trying to appear as militaristic as possible.  The caption is, “LOL.  It’s funny because rich white people don’t fight in real wars.”  This fits into the idea of the hipster relinquishing his middle-upper class background and striving to find danger and excitement.  While probably none of the people involved in this water fight will ever actually join the army, they are trying to recreate the danger involved with war.

Thanks for reading and responding, and I will see all of you on Tuesday!

Hipsters Gone Viral

Hey guys, hope everyone is having a good weekend! For this week’s blog, I will be discussing LOL and the corresponding article, and Marcus will be discussing Tumblr. Feel free to comment on both or just one of the topics. While the movie doesn’t seem to be on Trunk yet, the DVD is available in Tisch in case you aren’t able to find an online version.  Also, here is a link to the article:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cinema_journal/v050/50.4.christian.html

       

To start off, I want to discuss and provide some background information on the particular style of the film, known as Mumblecore. Mumblecore originated as a small film movement consisting of predominantly young, white, male filmmakers creating cheap, realist movies that portray the lives of other young people of the early twenty-first century. The style has somewhat of a DIY or documentary-like feel to it, due to the relatively poor visual quality, realist plots, and excessive use of the close-up. Mumblecore tends to focus on themes prevalent to the dawn of the digital age, honing in on the struggles for intimacy and emotional connection amongst a generation whose lives have become centralized outside of the physical reality. With the conscious exclusion of social, racial, and political issues, it has the ability to capture a unique perspective on individualism in the current generation in an attempts to create somewhat of a utopic or idealist experience. Mumblecore films, therefore, embody the “hyper-individualistic” search for both intimacy and authenticity. Ironically enough, the films also tend to deconstruct these notions as they generally include characters and plots that embody fakeness and disconnect.

Joe Swanberg’s film LOL is the prototypical mumblecore film. Each of the characters is involved in the hopeful search for intimacy, realism, and connection in a generation and an environment that directly opposes such desires. For example, Alex desires a relationship with a girl he discovers on an erotic website; Tim struggles to maintain his relationship because he is constantly on his computer; Chris’s trouble with his long-distance relationship all take place over the phone, and center around issues involving of digital communication and lack of physical connection. The binding theme within all of these character’s trouble with intimacy and connection lead me to my first major question: To what extent is the current generation’s inability to build meaningful relationships a product of technology and the digital age? Furthermore, how does this dual search for both individuals and social connection in the digital age relate to hipster culture? We have discussed social media and the internet as being platforms for the hipster “aesthetic” and for promoting the current subculture. With this in mind, to what extent are hipsterdom and the search for intimacy through online communication simply quests for truth and a “unified self?”

I also want to briefly discuss the techniques used in the film that are unique to the mumblecore style. Swanberg frequently uses extreme close-ups (parallelling the webcam style of the digital age), and poor visual quality to create a particular aesthetic. For example, a good portion of the film is made up of Alex’s “noiseheads” (filmed in a close-up “Real World” style) and grainy, low quality images from Chris’s cell phone. What does this visual aesthetic reflect about the digital age and its effect on intimacy and interpersonal connections? Furthermore, how does this style connect the audience to the personal desires of the characters in the film (similarly to the emergence of vlogs, webcams, and the age of YouTube)?

Finally, I want to address the last line of the article, which states, “The search for the real is lonely and desperate but is in itself satisfying.” How does this quote relate to hipsterdom, and more specifically hipsters' use of digital culture and social media?

Just for [kicks] and giggles

Whilst browsing for the samples of my group's trend for the research project, I stumbled along this gem... and am now in hysterics laughing. That said, use the link and have a good laugh - happy Wednesday!

http://vimeo.com/37289187

Medicine for Melancholy

Hey everyone! I hope you all read Hayley's post on Weekend, now we are going to talk about Medicine for Melancholy. I wanted to start off with a basic question and just ask what everyone thinks identifies this film as hipster? For instance, the lack of dialogue and the awkwardness between the characters create a very realistic and authentic mood since their interactions never seem forced. Is this realism what defines a hipster film, or is there something more? In addition, I thought it would be good to discuss what moods or impressions this style gave you. Did it make you uncomfortable or did you enjoy the awkward silences and (sometimes painfully) realistic conversations?

Besides the use of dialogue, the director made some very important decisions in regards to color. The whole film is almost completely in black and white with the exceptions being the scene on the carousel and the final shot where you see Jo leaving Micah's apartment. What do you think the significance of these scenes in color are? One interesting idea might be that the black and white style exemplifies how the single day that the movie tracks is almost dream-like, as the two strangers spend a day together detached from the reality of their usual lives. And at the end, there is color once again because the spell from the day before has been broken. However, what then, is the meaning of the glimpse of color with get while they ride the carousel?

I was also hoping to discuss whether people sympathized more with Micah or with Jo and why. For instance, did you find Micah to be too obsessive or Jo to be too defensive? And in your opinion, is Jo a part of the problem by being supported by her white boyfriend, or is she simply a woman in a stable relationship and nothing more? Another very interesting moment in the film was when Micah told Jo he was a “curator of fish”. What might the fish tanks symbolize and what does this tell us about Micah as a black hipster?

San francisco itself plays a massive roll in the film and in Micah and Jo's developing relationship. It is not only the setting of the film and a hipster hub, but also the place that Micah “loves but also hates” and the center of a subtle, yet present, race and class war, as neighborhoods gentrify and the poorer class gets kicked out. I also read an interesting NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/movies/30mela.html?_r=0) that called the film “more of a love triangle” then a love story between two people, the third component being the city. How might you describe the love triangle between Micah, Jo, and San Francsico?

 Finally, at about an hour into the film, Micah states “Everything about being indie is tied to not being black.” I wanted to talk about who agrees or disagrees with this statement and why? This also reminded me of the article about “The White Negro”, which discussed white people trying to be a part of the black struggle and how these individuals are hipsters. Yet Medicine for Melancholy perfectly outlined the irony in that fact that black people who have actually struggled are still not considered hip or indie in modern society. Why might that be? If hipsters are often considered to be outcasts or minorities, why do black people rarely fall into that category? In addition, feel free to compare this to the minority group (homosexuals) featured in Weekend. What similarities do you see between the characters in the films and rolls as minorities as well as their connections to hipsterism?

Weekend

Hey guys, hope you’ve all been having a good week. So the way that blogging is going to go this week is slightly different since we have two movies and two discussion leaders. On this post I will be discussing Weekend and Nicky will have a separate blog post that focuses on Medicine for Melancholy. You may feel free to comment briefly on both of our post or just on one of them. You can also relate the movies to each other even if you’re just commenting on one post rather than both. Here we go.

Even though the movie Weekend seems very simplistic there is much to discuss, so I would like to separate my blog post into four different sections to make sure that I cover all main points and ideas.

To start off I’d like to discuss a broad topic that is also responsible for the overarching mood and tone throughout the film and that includes its music, setting, and atmosphere. If you pay close attention to the music throughout the film you will find that there is not a single scene with background music. We only hear music when the characters hear music, which is definitely an interesting choice on the Haigh’s part. Usually the point of music in movies is to create a specific mood or emphasize the characters emotions. Do you think that the lack of music diminished the emotion experienced throughout the film, or do you think that in this case it amplified the emotion? Branching off of that question, what do you think Haigh’s message was in reducing the amount of background noise that was heard? Moving on to setting, I think its safe to say that the movie was set in various mundane places: clubs, apartments, houses, and a snippet of a carnival. Considering that there was nothing extraordinary about any of these places or about the events of the plot itself, how does this allow us to see an abnormal meaning in the events of everyday life? Moreover, let us discuss the atmosphere and how the music and setting help create it. With the lack of music and he mundane settings we are forced to focus on the characters themselves and the dialogue that goes on between them. Based on this, discuss the atmosphere or mood that was created during any scene that you found particularly important, and explain why you believe it to be significant.

“Concrete” was mentioned several times throughout the film in regards to Glen’s life and his inability to change. How does the idea of being held back by others and not being allowed to grow or change relate to being a hipster? On the other hand Russell seemed to have a very different perspective on life when compared to Glen. Russell believed in relationships and in people being happily in love, while, due to his past, Glen did not. Do you think that this opposing view on life aided their attraction to each other or made them more of a “hipster” couple? Moreover, the relationship portrayed in the film became very intense over a short period of time. Does this give us any insight into the hipster relationship?

          Also make sure to ask any other questions that you guys might have or that you might want to discuss in class!! Happy Blogging :)

Gender and The Hipster Art Community

Miranda July’s Me and You and Everyone We Know is a good study on the superimposition of meaning. We notice this through Christine’s art, narrating photographs that she sees, as well as when Richard tells his kids to be “kid-like”, to do whatever they normally do as kids. Nancy also had trouble telling a fake hamburger wrapper from a real one, and a real mug from a fake one. While on the surface they are identical, they are both different things. Will that matter if meaning is subjective, and people were not told the truth of which of the objects were real and which isn’t?

The superimposition of meaning is better exemplified in the context of the film’s touched-upon topic of the Digital Culture. Nancy engages in an online chat conversation with a six-year old boy, Robby, who she believes is much older. We as audience members are able to discern that Nancy’s responses were sexual innuendos, and she mistakenly believes that the person she is speaking to is responding in kind. Like when Nancy asks Robby if he is touching himself, and he says yes because his thumbs were touching. Definitely, because emotion is eliminated in a digital conversation, Nancy wasn’t able to tell that Robby’s responses were far from sexual. She also mistakes the symbol Robby draws to be something else. Recall how Parker couldn’t tell the difference in the quality of blow jobs from the two girls, while he was told not to look. He states that they were both “exactly the same” and that he "couldn’t tell the difference.” How does the digital age affect meaning? Also as a question to the scene in which Robby copies and pastes many of Nancy’s responses back at her, such as when he says "I remember” or “I trust you”, how has the digital culture affect sincerity? Has it made it better or has it made it worse?

)) <> ((

A movie such as July’s You and Me and Everyone We Know garnered critical acclaim from esteemed critics such as Roger Egbert. But did anyone actually get what the movie was trying to say? Was it easy to figure out what the director was trying to say? In an article by The Onion, they “subpoena” the director in an effort to discuss what exactly July is trying to perpetuate, what messages she is trying to convey and most importantly, to put it in economic terms, what exactly she is trying to sell to her audience.  This is interesting to think about in the context of July’s own movie Me and You and Everyone We Know, because of the aforementioned motif of the superimposition of meaning. Her responses at first seem like mere attempts to evade answering the question, that maybe she enjoys the shroud of mystery that comes with being a woman of few words. Then again, perhaps the answer is as simple as she leaves it to be. Was there really any meaning behind the movie? Did she have a concrete message she was trying to convey or is it possible that she just hoped people would draw their own conclusions from the movie? 

Tortorici’s essay You Know It When You See It examines the female-male hipster divide; and the definition of the female hipster. In the essay, she refers to hipsterism as a play of surfaces, a game of outward signification. But where hipster men are more easily identified, hipster women ‘receded into a network of complex signifiers”. She states that the presentation of the appearance of the hipster female and the media chosen for it is more important than the physical appearance. She examines the effect of hipster photography on the definition of the hipster female, where postures girls held in photos emerged intimations of a personality, which was the hipster ‘chillness’. Flash-forward to ten years in the future, how has the digital age, with photoshop and do-overs and camera bursts allow people to masquerade as something they are not? Tortorici’s essay ends with the words “Life isn’t like this, the photo seemed to say. But can’t a girl dream?" This is indicative of a sense of self-reflexivity or self-awareness. How does that play into hipsterism? In today’s day and age, is it really so simple to discern a male hipster than it was before? Is it more or less difficult than for a female hipster?

Crafting and the Indie Design Movement states that DIY mimics the idea of the punk and indie’s longtime emphasis on celebrating difference and making do with what you already have at hand. The majority of vendors and crafters are women who operate their own businesses. How does DIY fit into the hipster canon from the hipster female perspective? It emphasized the fact that strong women were able to do whatever they wanted, as they were released from the male-dominated economy of business and money, stressed the feminist notions of the DIY community. What is the role that feminism plays in the definition of hipsterism?

With regards to the cycle of consumerism, can artists ever truly independent if they want to be successful? Also, can hipsterism now be considered a commodity that is marketable? 

Drawing from the earlier paragraph of the digital culture, we notice that the intrinsic value of handmade objects is reduced greatly due to mass production and the fact that there is no relationship between buyer and seller. The essay notes that the idea of getting to know your customer is inherently indie. What does that say about the trend of hipsterism, and the hipster art community?

Speaking of Authenticity...

Why Converse Is Fighting to Keep All Stars Cool

Are You More Hipster or More Basic - Buzzfeed

http://www.buzzfeed.com/perpetua/are-you-more-hipster-or-more-basic#46kbdlh

I got more basic...

New Sincerity

New Sincerity is a reaction to the hipster culture's ironic desire to appear sincere in the face of insincere motives. This irony explicitly results from an attempt to imitate what what one is not in order to achieve hipness. An example, being middle class American's affinity for the urban outfitter, grungy, trucker type fashion styles that originated from the marginalized. This incongruity defines trends of modern hipster culture . However new sincerity rejects this artificially based culture by elevating sincerity above insincerity through the credibility of irony.

Understanding new sincerity can be tricky. Simplified it combines irony and sincerity. The ironic component being the contradiction of authenticity to it's cultural context, a culture which “values economics and consumption over the values of humanism and artistic enterprise.” as described in Hip Affected Earnestness. Again in Hip Affected Earnestness, Bon Iver's interview with ABC, well exemplifies the contrast of the authenticity of the artist's music to our generations commercial culture. In the interview, ABC questions Vernon about his emotional ties to his album, For Emma, Forever Ago. The interview, attempting to grasp at an emotional understanding of his work pathetically fails and therefore distinguishes the culture from the cultural object. Bon Iver is just one example of new sincerity that has attracted popularity recently. We can again justify this growing movement due to a desire to escape from the solidarity and insincerity of the mainstream hipster culture. On that note, as new sincerity gains more appreciation and attention, do you think it has the potential to become the mainstream replacing or at least dominating the more “Pre-2007” hipsterism? Has it already done so? Or does the intellectual capacity needed to appreciate the movement, restrict new sincerity to an elitist group? By intellectual capacity I am referring to the ability to understand and recognize irony ( a concept hard to understand to begin with) specifically in relation to authenticity within our materialistic culture. Trends that define much of culture today are typically dependent on visual accessibility through media and commercialism. But when a cultural trend is dominantly conceptual how will that effect its distribution within the population?

Looking specifically at Altered Ego, notice how the critic of Synechode, New York, reviews the film negatively due to its lack of meaning with “half filled ideas”. Synechode, New York undoubtedly skims over a multitude of topics, issues, ideas etc. Do you agree with the review of the film however that the amount of incomplete ideas presented constitutes a poor and ostentatious film?

Traditionally movies try to entertain a viewer while also leaving them with an explicit overriding message . However Synechode New York is not a traditional film with a traditional purpose. I'd argue part of its purpose is to display new sincerity perspective and its prevalence within todays society. If new sincerity is a perspective, doesn't it make sense to adopt a multitude of scenarios, ideas that reinforce the thought process? Also wouldn't it make the film more realistic including even mundane and unrelated aspects of life? Also if new sincerity is depicted indirectly through irony and the connection of context to authenticity, its interpretation is dependent on viewer. Therefore open-ended or “half filled ideas” as mentioned in Altered Ego would be necessary in to stimulate viewer perspective.​​​

Additionally look at how does the film specifically depicts new sincerity. How do elements of cinematography(acting style, the title,etc) and/or concepts within the film (themes such as artistic authenticity, fame, death,, etc.) create irony?

Hipster Irony and New Scincerity

First, “Synecdoche, New York”



Even though you’re supposed to form your own opinions on films, and what they mean is dependent on your personal interpretations – here are two links of youtube videos giving a bit of analysis on the film. I typically don’t like to read reviews, but I found these two be very helpful in pointing out a lot of irony in the film. (Note that in comparison to the “Altered Ego” review, these links present a more positive opinion on the film)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fep0nNIj1qs#t=783
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYTTBrc0_KE


The film presents the idea of blurring lines between reality and theatre, whether through Caden’s inability to connect in his reality because he is absorbed in creating art or consumed by his hypochondria, or through the actors themselves who become incredibly invested in the roles they play. The video talks about the woman hired to play Ellen, the cleaning lady – Caden hires her because she said she knew how to clean, and that’s what she did all day; so the question posed is “is she an actress or is she a maid?” What’s the difference between “the roles that we play and who we really are?”

How does this idea relate to the hipster, or more specifically to the hipster’s who appropriate pieces of other cultures? By creating an identity based on the identity of others, do hipsters ultimately lose themselves, and get to a point where who they really are, is a combination of different cultural idiosyncrasies? Does that take away their authenticity or supplement it?



A film review in the guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/may/15/synecdoche-new-york) writes “Caden's huge, mad, pasteboard world stands for the real world, is part of it, is superimposed on to it, and finally melts into it.” To what extent do you think this same idea is true about hipsters and hipster culture? Does what makes up hipster culture eventually become a part of the mainstream once again? Are all elements of hipster culture initially part of the mainstream and it’s just a matter of changing fashion?

In response to the essay "Hip Affected Earnestness," how can you relate it to the film? Do you think they parallel in regards to ideas of authenticity and individuality? (page 199)
- On pages 200 - 201, the essay discusses the idea of "New Sincerity" what are your thoughts on this ideal? Can you think of any other examples - like that of Evil Knievel - that exemplifies this ideal?
- For those of you that know the bands mentioned on page 203, do you think that their music is actually stripped down and honest, (and for those of you that like them) and that is what makes it good music? Is it possible that some of these bands, or similar artists apply the "equation: pure voice + instrument = sincerity" to be labeled as hipster bands? Or does it come from a more sincere place, of the artist wanting to express their emotions in a more raw manner?
And finally, today we associate Hipster's with irony - but the essay, to an extent, emphasizes the fact that hipsters are meant to be moving away from irony and towards sincerity. What do you think that says about the authenticity of hipsters today?

A Part for The Whole

So with Synecdoche, New York and this week’s reading there is a lot to talk about. I want to ask very seriously the question, how do we know something is ironic or not? How do we understand irony? Is it as simple as saying that it is a difference between what one says and what one means? To refer to the film, recall the scene when Claire and Caden argue because Sammy said what Caden thought. This scene highlights a tension between thought and speech that reverberates throughout the entire film. What do we make of the fact that there is no division between what one thinks and what one says? In light of our conversation concerning irony, does irony persist when knowledge is recursively broken down. By this I mean that in Synecdoche, New York, there is anxiety about knowledge, an anxiety that we have seen throughout in our discussion about the hipster. This anxiety also works as an uncertainty, an uncertainty of never quite being sure what one means, why one means something, in short, an uncertainty of whether or not the meaning, the speech, produced by someone is genuine or sincere. Thus, the film is structured like a mise-en-abyme. This means it is structured like an image of a mirror reflecting itself ad infinitum. This kind of self-reflexive structure has become a common trope and is seen by some people as pretentious or overwrought with the sense of trying to hard to be intellectual. This is basically what the Altered Ego essay argues is the problem with Synecdoche, New York. I’m interested in what people think about this trope (the mirror within a mirror) in relation to the hipster. Does it capture the hipster’s problem of self elevation as a means of being superior, or does it suggest something much more problematic about ourselves, about the world? I’m not sure if this question makes a lot of sense, it is hard to talk about irony without being ironized in turn. I’ve been wondering a lot about subjectivity in regards to irony, sincerity, and how it is operating in Synecdoche, New York. I think this is best seen when Caden moves from being the director to an actor being directed. In the final scenes of the film, as I’m sure we all remember, Caden is being told what to do and what to say by Ellen who has taken on the role of Caden. When I first saw the final scene with Caden and the woman that played Ellen’s mother in the dream, I thought that it was the most sincere moment of the film. The film ends with Caden saying “I know what to do with this play now. I have an idea. I think.” After he says this, however, Ellen’s voice is overheard saying, “die.” In the end, even death has become subjected to the desires of the director. The film makes us question if Caden occupies a subject position, if he exist as an “I”, if he has a subjective “eye”? In the last paragraph of Hip Affected Earnestness the first sentence reads, “It saddens hipsters and thrills clothing manufacturers that trends once hip have caught on with frat guys and sorority girls looking to spice up their wardrobe”; and the second, “American “rebel capitalism” that “commodifies your dissent” now helps the American consumer retail economy along at ever-greater speeds, even amidst its current lethargy.”

In a world where even our dissent has been capitalized and commercialized, how can we say that our desires our “authentically” ours and not, like in Synecdoche, New York, being directed by capitalism? I guess my big question is what is at stake when we talk about authenticity and inauthenticity, and whom do you think is able to claim the authentic, and who is able to disclaim the inauthentic? To end this rather confusing post (I’m sorry) I’ve been thinking a lot about what Jackie said a couple of weeks back about using irony to combat irony. I’m wondering if we can think of Synecdoche, New York as an example of this kind of mode of ironic warfare, or if we can think of other examples. Feel free to disagree with me, or ask questions, or anything. I’m looking forward to our discussion!

Hipster Activism and Slacktivism

Hey! This week, for our discussion on Hipster Activism and Slacktivism, I want you guys to pay special attention to what constitutes activism (or the lack thereof) and how hipsters utilize such. That said, here are some questions to jog your thoughts…

In Stacey Patton’s article, “Why blacks aren’t embracing Occupy Wall Street,” the reason for African Americans’ failure to participate in Occupy Wall Street is explored. She begins by quantitatively arguing how economically marginalized African Americans are in America today (this should stir you to make connections to our discussion two weeks ago about marginalization breeding hipsterdom). Such marginalization has bred existentialism (this is 1950s suburbia-esque) amongst African Americans, and blacks are under the impression that “Nothing will change. [They] have been here already. It’s hopeless.” Thus, is it more hipster to be a white, protesting for economic change, or to be a black, less optimistic for a change in the status quo? Likewise, this article begs the question whether or not hipsters need leaders. Hipsters are alleged to be followers, cherry-pickers of various social capital that they have neither earned nor innovated. If the black church were to exert more effort into the Occupy Wall Street movement, civil rights groups were to no longer sell out black America for corporate money, and African American pop culture icons were to get involved first-hand, would black involvement be any greater?

Eyder Peralta’s coverage of the hipster cop (“Out of Wall Street Protest, An Unlikely Celebrity: ‘Hipster Cop’”) refocuses us on the strength of the hipster versus that of the man. In a time where being hipster and sticking it to the man has become the mainstream, is it now more hipster to work with the law, rather than against it? Does working with the law merit slacktivism, as one is failing to protest, or activism, as one is working for a purpose?

Lastly, “Small Change” by Malcolm Gladwell argues the failure of social media to promote effective activism. He concludes “activism that challenges the status quo – that attacks deeply rooted problems – is not for the faint of heart.” Personal connections are the greatest variable as to one’s degree of involvement or willingness to fight an injustice at a high-risk level, and social networks like Facebook simply don’t accommodate those. Thus, is in unauthentic and inactive of hipsters to try and promote change via the Internet? Formal protests are clearly more effective and more danger, as was demonstrated by the Greensboro sit-ins, but is simply raising awareness worthy of being counted a failure on the hipster’s behalf? Or, to play devil’s advocate, is awareness the quintessential first step to activism?

Hit me with your ideas and thoughts, and please feel free to contribute, share, or answer any other questions you might have. Examples are encouraged in your responses!

Happy hipster-ing!

Related to our discussion about "art"...

"Giving Meaning to Art"

Artist Creates Invisble 'Art' and Collectors Are Paying Millions

Slightly off-topic, but I really had to share this with you. I laughed through the whole part when the artist describes the process of imagining the creation of her paintings.

Selling Out

The texts and film for this week's discussion relate art to it's accessibility and demand a more pointed examination of this relationship.

I. How does the context of art influence our appreciation of it? Can you think of a particular tag or piece of street art that evoked a strong feeling/emotion? How does that compare to a memory you may have of an exhibit in a museum?

II. It's interesting to me that Banksy made a transformation of role from intended subject of "Exit Through the Gift Shop," to director. What do you make of this? What relevance does it hold in the context of his career and in the context of the readings?

III. Newman's definition of "mainstream" marks an implicit value for money over art. Indie art and media aims to confront and challenge the mainstream. Is is possible for indie art or media to change or become the mainstream without losing its (allegedly) intrinsic alternative value? What does it mean to you to "sell out?"

We'll cover, at least in part, these questions and responses in class discussion.I'll be giving everyone the opportunity to contribute questions at the start of class on Tuesday, too, so bear that in mind.

Thanks everyone, enjoy the rest of the weekend!

I find the connections Evan made between post WW2 anxieties and The Egger's anxiety towards the death in their family to be very interesting as they were more obscure traces of hipsterism within the writing. What I found to be the most "in your face traces of hipsterism within the novel was more related to a modern view of the word. The themes of self-consumption, materialism, and generational gaps were obnoxiously depicted with the authors linkage of satire to these themes. I think the ambitions of Dave best exemplify these themes. His desire to publish Might Magazine and star in Real World on MTV reminded me of the irony of hipsterism today and how it has come to the forefront of media attention yet still preaches exclusivity from the masses.

Tom's Post

So, Dave Eggers' novel has been characterized to us as "the defining piece of hipster literature" (no, those are not air quotes, just trying to quote what has been said). What I want to get out of our discussion, and this blog, is what exactly makes the text representative of hipster culture? I believe that this text, very representative of an early-2000's state of mind, is deeper than what we categorize as hipster. While it is difficult to pinpoint a single definition, I believe Eggers' novel will help us  to examine the elements or characteristics of hipsterdom through literature. I would first suggest reading a few reviews on the novel, from a variety of different sources. Most do not address the hipster aspect but give a solid literary review that is the basis for our classification. Once that is complete, respond to the questions below.

1: What is the single most, in your face, look-at-me-I'm-a-hipster, element of the text? Personally, I see many possible options. The ones that stick out to me are the mocking nature of the entire novel (seen throughout and in the preface sections), Eggers' rejection of society (page 150 in my book, the MTV interview scene for others), and the gloating nature of Eggers' vocabulary (look at the title, for goodness sake). Feel encouraged to present new ideas and comment on those I have shared.

2: Is it fair to draw a line between hipster culture and youth culture? Why or why not? It seems as though almost all of Eggers' acquaintances that are near him in age share a relatively similar state of mind. This begs the question of whether or not it is being a hipster, or just being young. 

3: Does the hipster label affect the text's literary value? While searching online, I have seen many articles such as "the 15 most painstakingly hipster songs" or "19 hipster book titles that are too mainstream to exist." Do we look at the book a different way or judge it differently, knowing it is an object of hipsterdom? Feel free to comment on literary analyses and do not be afraid to draw a comparison to the literary criticisms of "classics."

4: Can we cut Eggers a little slack? Given his circumstances,  the whole parental death and being responsible for Toph, Eggers' life is certainly far from admirable. Can we take some of his whiny, self-deprecating passages as legitimate heartbreak or are we to assume he is being juvenile? 

Reminder: these are just a few questions that we will discuss. Feel encouraged to post your own questions or piggy-back and create more questions. We have 2.5 hours to discuss, the more topics, the merrier.