Driving through some of the cool happening nieghborhoods of Minneapolis the other day I couldn’t help but be dumbfounded by the hipster revolution. No, it has showed no signs of waining as many have begun to suggest, at least in Minnesota. Even as the thermometer fails to rise past zero and four inches of snow coat the roads and side walks the preponderance of impractical style rings of preposterousness.
WHY? Why are you wearing designer sneaker right now?
I don’t know if its possible to explain the ignorance of practical clothing, but there is something to be said of the phenomenon. This urban stylistic revolution. What happens when those city dwellers adopt a culture that is exactly that: culture.
Culture. The distinctions that define this of similar identity and experience. Thats and easy one when it comes to peoples who are defined by the more static phenomenon. IE residence in America, American Culture. Or those who spend most of their time participating in a specific business or recreation: corporate/business culture, or maybe rock climbing culture, or ski bum culture.
But the culture of cultures? Those urbanites who’s identities are defined by the preponderance of culture found in the conglomeration of diversity in which they reside. Their style is no longer a aspect of their culture, it is their culture.
The name says it all. Hip-ster. One which is hip, ones who’s identity, who’s culture is defined by hipness.
But what does this mean for them?
Its hard to say good or bad. But it seems there is reason to worry when peoples sense of culture of self and identity is defined by something as intangible and abstract as the now daily evolution of style.
What good is such an identity? Such that is defined by the completely arbitrary and many times nonsensical homogenization of individuality.