Article: Why do People Hate Hipsters

[Gilboa]

@ Pompidou: You hit the nail on the head!

And I would like to add:

Each group, may they be hipsters, vintage fantatics or any other group that involves a certain dress code and social/mental attitude and a particular music style, have followers of all sorts.


But particularily hipsters, I find, come in groups of 3 main types:

1) The Rebells: frustrated with what society locks upon as 'normal' and fed up with the druggery of 'normal' life ... These individuals are usually highly creative and intelligent and just want to find a platform with likeminded people.

2) The me toos: without guidance in their lives (ie lack of parents, or unsuitable parents) and just want to belong .... so they follow any group that remotely resembles what they desire for themselves. Also not been educated or encouraged how to think for themselves, so they copy others

3) The slobs: lazy, spoilt, bored, and always looking for some excuse to behave in an antisocial manner. Sadly, these individuals spoil it for the rest and people think that the entire 'movement' consists of people of this type.


Personally, I like people that have they own ideas in life. It would be so terribly boring otherwise.

Another group which people always talk down are the 'Goths'. Personally, every 'goth' I have met was in fact surprisingly sensitive, cared about history, poetry and generally had a romantic, although maybe dark, outlook on life.


Its easy to judge, it takes more effort to understand.

 

[Sincerely-Dee]

We're a group of people dedicated to dressing and acting differently than everyone else. If anyone can set the hipsters straight, it's us. We're the same thing. You want smugness, browse the boards. You'll find it. Embrace the hipsters as kindred spirits. They're closer to what we are than any other social group. You can't form a group of people wearing near century old clothes like it's the new trend, believing it superior (again, you'll find this attitude in many threads), trying to be different for its own sake - you can't do this and then look down on that other culture doing the exact same thing. I like what we do here, but we need to understand that we're living in a glass house. We shouldn't throw stones. We don't like their skinny jeans. They don't like suit pants that come up to the belly button. To each their own, I say. I think we're pretty much hipsters - vintage hipsters.

I agree wholly. I've been labelled a hipster once, which I of course vehemently denied. I was annoyed at first but when I really look into in it seems that we are extremely alike. As much as hipsters look down their noses at the world, you can find people on this forum who are exactly the same - if not worse.

 

[p71towny]

I don't do things for any other reason than I like it. I dunno, I thought others were the same way here.

 

[Mr Badger]

I don't do things for any other reason than I like it.

I'm with you on that - call it natural inquisitiveness on my part, but I just find the stuff I'm into endlessly fascinating. I've learnt so much more about 20th C history, in all senses, from being into music, clothes, film, literature, TV, furniture, architecture, food, etc, than during my entire, rather poor education...

 

[Fletch]

You're a bright one, then. Our American hipsters/aficionados/etc. tend to specialize, because in the end for us, it's not just about what you love - it's always a little bit about being king of the hill. Even if it's an ant hill.

Present company - as always - excepted.

 

[Mr Badger]

It's not a competition, IMHO, it's just about keeping life interesting!

My life would have turned out much differently if I'd have been competitive with anyone other than myself. I'd probably have more money, but that's not everything. All told, I have met a huge amount of wonderful people, traveled extensively, and experienced many, many things that I've found to be massively enjoyable and inspirational, all because I started communicating with folks into the same things as myself, back when I was 13-or-so...

 

[MikeBravo]

Ah, but you mean a real hipster! My wife and I love Shag's artwork...

"Everybody's cool, and everyone's a fool" as James Jewel Osterberg once put it...

I have to admit I'm probably more of a "hipster doofus"

An interesting thing about that picture of the party is that it is based on a real home, the Rose Seidler House in Australia "An outstanding example of modern architecture, Rose Seidler House was built by the celebrated architect Harry Seidler between 1948 and 1950 for his parents Rose and Max Seidler" At http://www.seidler.net.au/projects/001Frameset.html. The portrait on the coffee table is of the architect Harry Seidler himself

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

We're a group of people dedicated to dressing and acting differently than everyone else. If anyone can set the hipsters straight, it's us. We're the same thing. You want smugness, browse the boards. You'll find it. Embrace the hipsters as kindred spirits. They're closer to what we are than any other social group. You can't form a group of people wearing near century old clothes like it's the new trend, believing it superior (again, you'll find this attitude in many threads), trying to be different for its own sake - you can't do this and then look down on that other culture doing the exact same thing. I like what we do here, but we need to understand that we're living in a glass house. We shouldn't throw stones. We don't like their skinny jeans. They don't like suit pants that come up to the belly button. To each their own, I say. I think we're pretty much hipsters - vintage hipsters.

I have several questions. How are "we" the same thing? Why should we embrace hipsters as kindred spirits? How are we kindred spirits?

"They're closer to what we are than any other social group. You can't form a group of people wearing near century old clothes like it's the new trend, believing it superior (again, you'll find this attitude in many threads), trying to be different for its own sake - you can't do this and then look down on that other culture doing the exact same thing."

There is no belief that the clothing is superior, it is superior, factually. From a historical perspective, suits have been the staple of every man's wardrobe. The more expensive the clothing, generally the more successful the person. If you dress like a slob then people will think you are slob. If you say stupid things then people will think you are stupid. Suits generally cost more than other clothing, which suggests a higher value for suits. Suits are more formal.

Loungers don't wear suits to be cool. Loungers aren't following a trend. Loungers aren't doing what society shoves down our throats.

 

[John in Covina]

This quote from the article has a semblance of truth to it from the perceptions of the outsiders view:

"detractors might not know exactly what a hipster is, but they do know what they don't like: a tiresome sort of trendy, ostentatious in their perceived rebellion, yet strangely conformist; meticulous in their tastes, yet also strangely limited. Squatting somewhere between MGMT, The Inbetweeners and Derek Zoolander, this modern incarnation is all mouth and skinny trousers."

Some don't like the idea of pigeon-holing people but it tends to be the very people placing themselves into their pigeon hole seeking comfort from being part of a group or subculture.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's a thought -- if the current, modern culture somehow ceased to exist, would not also hipsterism? Isn't it a subculture -- like many subcultures -- that is defined pretty much exclusively by its "ironic opposition" to the existing mass culture? So isn't a hipster absolutely dependent on contemporary mass culture for his very existence? Without it, without the very thing he claims to oppose, isn't he just the sound of one hand clapping?

I don't really see vintageism as being like that -- for many vintage folks, the current mass culture could cease to exist tomorrow without affecting them or their worldview in the least. Many of us are less interested in critiquing modern culture than we are in simply avoiding it.

 

[p71towny]

Good point Lizzie. I know my opinion is purely subjective, but I find most stuff from the early 20th century timeless. I've never bought an antique to tell modern society I'm not gonna conform lol. Fact is, if the same quality, and craftsmanship went into new products, I would just as gladly buy and use them.

 

[Pompidou]

I have several questions. How are "we" the same thing? Why should we embrace hipsters as kindred spirits? How are we kindred spirits?

"They're closer to what we are than any other social group. You can't form a group of people wearing near century old clothes like it's the new trend, believing it superior (again, you'll find this attitude in many threads), trying to be different for its own sake - you can't do this and then look down on that other culture doing the exact same thing."

There is no belief that the clothing is superior, it is superior, factually. From a historical perspective, suits have been the staple of every man's wardrobe. The more expensive the clothing, generally the more successful the person. If you dress like a slob then people will think you are slob. If you say stupid things then people will think you are stupid. Suits generally cost more than other clothing, which suggests a higher value for suits. Suits are more formal.

Loungers don't wear suits to be cool. Loungers aren't following a trend. Loungers aren't doing what society shoves down our throats.

Factually superior? No. Just factually more formal. Is formal factually superior? No. It's factually more appropriate for formal occasions. Is there a dichotomy between "wears suits" and "is a slob"? No. The more expensive the clothing the more successful the person? Just more wealthy, I think, and wealth isn't the sole measure of success. I could link you to some ridiculously expensive Ed Hardy designer t-shirts and etc that'd blow most of the forums' outfit prices out of the water, and don't even look good. Casual and ridiculously expensive? I imagine the guy who pays 500 for a t-shirt is superior to us all - factually of course. Because, from a historical perspective, expensive people are better people. If you pay too much for clothes inappropriate to your situation, people will think you're stupid even if you don't say stupid things. I like suits as much as anyone here - don't get me wrong. But, comparing apples and oranges with different sorts of fashions, and saying "Apples are factually superior to oranges" is pretty dumb. You want to say, "This apple is factually superior to this apple" - that's appropriate. There's a whole world of good things to wear and the only mark of superiority is suitability to purpose. Anyway, I'm rambling.

 

[John in Covina]

You have to to have an understanding of a thing to be able to assign a value to it. If you don't see a value in something (Y) then it is very easy to say x is better than y. Vintage, true vintage such as suits has a value many here can understand with a relationship to a beloved style, better materials and often better attention to detail in it's production.

Skinny jeans don't impress me much nor does many other current fashion trends I don't see a value in them and while I see some type of statement in wearing them i find that the mores and value systems of the present day wearers are not mine. Their concerns tend to not be mine. In preteens, teens and twenty-somethings often there is a need to be well liked by the peer group and part of an In Group. People may select a group they wish to be part of and will mold much of their lives for a period of time to fit in with that group. Fashion is often a part of that perception as to what defines a group.


Often as we get older the idea of current fashion remains with certain age groups and we move on. Sometimes that is part of what might be described as growing up.

 

[Mr Badger]

Aesthetically, modern fashions are remixing vintage styles in what FL-ers, as peeps who are into form and content, find contextually confusing or, in some cases, downright offensive.

Succeeding generations always do this, with all areas of popular culture – for instance, a young guest DJ at one of our nights played great music, all of which we knew, but in a way that made sense to her generation, rather than ours. Same records, different order.

Most youngsters just buy clothes to fit with their peer group, as John pointed out. When I was a teen, we all wore tight black jeans with big belts, pointed Beatle boots, corduroy jackets and tab-collared shirts or thick-striped t-shirts – with 'bowl' haircuts topping it off – to reflect our love of 1960s beat / R&B / garage music... luckily, I realised that this didn't suit me, so as I investigated the cultural roots of my teen obsessions, I also discovered clothing more suitable for my 6' 4" frame... as our group of friends splintered, geographically, some lost interest in clothes but got way into ever-more esoteric music, others changed their styles (1940s, tailor-mades, rockabilly, hepcat jazzers, etc) and their musical tastes, and others just got married, had kids and found that they weren't really interested in keeping up with any of it... that's life, innit?

Personally, none of my friends round here take much of an interest in clothes, and no doubt think I'm a bit odd, in the same way that we may think hipsters are. I must say that I still meet a great number of really fine human beans who are coming at life from completely opposite viewpoints to myself, and I wouldn't presume to judge them by their trousers, or whatever. It's my hang-up, not theirs... having said that, I still wince when I see some large-footed teen in a pair of grey skinny jeans – they look like an old golf club in silhouette!

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Factually superior? No. Just factually more formal. Is formal factually superior? No. It's factually more appropriate for formal occasions. Is there a dichotomy between "wears suits" and "is a slob"? No. The more expensive the clothing the more successful the person? Just more wealthy, I think, and wealth isn't the sole measure of success. I could link you to some ridiculously expensive Ed Hardy designer t-shirts and etc that'd blow most of the forums' outfit prices out of the water, and don't even look good. Casual and ridiculously expensive? I imagine the guy who pays 500 for a t-shirt is superior to us all - factually of course. Because, from a historical perspective, expensive people are better people. If you pay too much for clothes inappropriate to your situation, people will think you're stupid even if you don't say stupid things. I like suits as much as anyone here - don't get me wrong. But, comparing apples and oranges with different sorts of fashions, and saying "Apples are factually superior to oranges" is pretty dumb. You want to say, "This apple is factually superior to this apple" - that's appropriate. There's a whole world of good things to wear and the only mark of superiority is suitability to purpose. Anyway, I'm rambling.

Getting off track here. Could you address the following questions first:
1. How are "we" the same thing?
2. Why should we embrace hipsters as kindred spirits?
3. How are we kindred spirits?

In regards to my points. Your previous post suggests that I am arguing that by wearing suits the person is morally or culturally superior to the person wearing a t-shirt and jeans. I have never made that argument. I argue the clothing is superior not the person.

If wealth is not the sole measure of success then what is? Happiness is a difficult thing to quantify. The more money you make the higher liklihood you are valued. There are reasons CEOs make more money than janitors.

The $500 t-shirt is an outlier and its price is inflated. Ultimately the suit's value comes from the skill it takes to craft it. It takes more skill to create a suit than a t-shirt. Since it comes from a skilled trade, the suit has a higher value. A Michelangelo is superior to a Pollack.

Historically people have worn suits longer than modern dress. Suits have a pedigree.

The suit is aesthetically more pleasing-- this likely stems from its history. If someone were to create a subjective test, this would be undeniable. Take any casual jean and t-shirt wearer and throw them in a suit and they look much better.

yes, you are rambling.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

You have to to have an understanding of a thing to be able to assign a value to it. If you don't see a value in something (Y) then it is very easy to say x is better than y. Vintage, true vintage such as suits has a value many here can understand with a relationship to a beloved style, better materials and often better attention to detail in it's production.

Skinny jeans don't impress me much nor does many other current fashion trends I don't see a value in them and while I see some type of statement in wearing them i find that the mores and value systems of the present day wearers are not mine. Their concerns tend to not be mine. In preteens, teens and twenty-somethings often there is a need to be well liked by the peer group and part of an In Group. People may select a group they wish to be part of and will mold much of their lives for a period of time to fit in with that group. Fashion is often a part of that perception as to what defines a group.


Often as we get older the idea of current fashion remains with certain age groups and we move on. Sometimes that is part of what might be described as growing up.

John highlights my point that suits have a historical pedigree. People are still wearing suits after hundreds of years. If people are still wearing hipster dress in a hundred years then there is some value to it. Otherwise it is just a trend.

 

[Pompidou]

Lots of clothes have a historical pedigree. Outfits we'd still call suits seem to have been around since the 1800s, or at least came to prominence around then. That ages them about 200 years. Wikipedia claims suits were invented in the 17th century. I honestly think the photos I googled of 17th century suits have more in common with Medieval/Renaissance aristocratic attire, with the knicker pants, billowy shirts and coats, and tights. I wouldn't call them suits as we understand it, but if so, fair enough. Still, the item relevant to our conversation is over 200 years old, as best I can tell. Jeans were invented in 1873. If longevity is the defining criteria of victory in this debate, then you win. Suits have been around longer than jeans. Not by an amount that really matters, but fair is fair. People have been wearing work trousers for way longer than suits, and jeans are little more than a quality innovation in work trousers, but I still don't think it matters.

Suits have been evolving over the entire course of their life span - sometimes subtly, sometimes not. Compare the dandy to the golden age to today. Jeans have been evolving too. We don't dress like dandies anymore. Largely gone is the top hat. On the side of jeans, the current trend of tight jeans is also just a fad. Suits are here to stay. Dandyism came and left. Jeans are here to stay. The hipster take on jeans, not so much. Will people be wearing suits the same way we wear them today in 50 years? Who knows... If I had to guess, I'd say the future is in the more casual blazer/sports' coat, but I'm no expert. I just notice a trend in suits over time of losing their components. Will today's suit be tomorrow's tuxedo? Maybe not, but it wouldn't surprise me. So, jeans also have a pedigree.

T-shirts, according to Wikipedia were invented during the 1800s. They've been around for longer than jeans, but not as long as suits, and have also evolved over time.

What I'm saying, essentially, is that all clothes have historical pedigree. There are different reasons to wear clothes, and suits aren't superior for all of them. None are superior. They all have their place. They're means to an end. They've all evolved over time, and it's a false argument to pit suits as a single entity against one particular style of jeans to claim greater pedigree. We haven't been wearing suits in the same manner for their history. We won't be wearing them in the same manner in a decade, I'd guess. People get tired of things. Clothes are like a toolbox, and if your only tool is a screwdriver, you won't get very far with it. Screwdrivers are very important tools, but so are hammers and wrenches. Screwdrivers aren't inherently superior to hammers despite probably being more difficult to make - though hammers do have a longer historical pedigree, if it matters.

As for those questions you wanted answered first, they've already been answered in the post I began with that a surprising number of people seemed to like. I've read your prior posts on your feelings about hipsters and I'm thinking we'll likely have to agree to disagree. I would just caution against stereotyping.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Here's a thought -- if the current, modern culture somehow ceased to exist, would not also hipsterism? Isn't it a subculture -- like many subcultures -- that is defined pretty much exclusively by its "ironic opposition" to the existing mass culture? So isn't a hipster absolutely dependent on contemporary mass culture for his very existence? Without it, without the very thing he claims to oppose, isn't he just the sound of one hand clapping?

I don't really see vintageism as being like that -- for many vintage folks, the current mass culture could cease to exist tomorrow without affecting them or their worldview in the least. Many of us are less interested in critiquing modern culture than we are in simply avoiding it.

Very well said (as always.) I tune out 2010 as much as I am practically able. My cues come from within.

 

[Pompidou]

Here's a thought -- if the current, modern culture somehow ceased to exist, would not also hipsterism? Isn't it a subculture -- like many subcultures -- that is defined pretty much exclusively by its "ironic opposition" to the existing mass culture? So isn't a hipster absolutely dependent on contemporary mass culture for his very existence? Without it, without the very thing he claims to oppose, isn't he just the sound of one hand clapping?

I don't really see vintageism as being like that -- for many vintage folks, the current mass culture could cease to exist tomorrow without affecting them or their worldview in the least. Many of us are less interested in critiquing modern culture than we are in simply avoiding it.

In the hat forums at least, there're a lot of "How can I deal with regular people while trying to be myself" sort of posts. We're a minority, and we're not always treated with much respect. If there was no mass culture, you're right, there would be no hipsters as we know them. Of course, if there was no modern culture, there would be no vintagers. We both exist not on our own merits, but in contrast to a majority. We're defined by our differences from the norm. We're both held in some disdain by the modern culture. Take a look at the million cases of hat/hat-wearer abuse on the hat forums for a better idea. We are a subculture. I think that's a good thing. I like the idea of subcultures. Every subculture I can think of right now is defined by its appearance. We could wear all black and be called goths. We could pierce up and dye our hair and whatnot and dress like punks. Skin tight jeans, girly t-shirts and long bangs over the eyes and you might call yourself emo. If you wear clothes from the golden age, you're one of us. Hipsters are just another group. No better, no worse. They all have their reasons for being. For what it's worth, as far as I know, most of those groups don't like one another much either. For some reason, one way small groups stick together is by not liking other small groups. It must just be human nature. I just think they should all get along.

 

[scottyrocks]

Ive read this thread and I dont understand the whole hate thing, and why anyone would even bother to care about why people are wearing peg-legged pants, whether it be for fashion, trending, or social reasons. The 'younger generation' has always been characterized by 'tude-of-the-moment rebelliousness, in whatever fashion or style just happened to grab the first coupla people who adopted them. And older people have usually been puzzled by the young'uns choices, often forgetting that they were once young themselves.

Theres a young teacher in my school who wears hipster-style clothing. He's on the obnoxious side for a variety of reasons but I dont think its because he wears tight-fitting clothing. He'd be the same way no matter what he wore. This just happens to be how he dresses. I dont judge him by his clothes.

Anecdotal, yes, but I generally think the judgment concept is ridiculous simply because youngers have always been this way, just in different costumes. Most of us get over it. Its the way the world works.