Tag Archives: hipster

The Beauty of Hipster Porn

Dear —-,

One sleepless night two months ago I googled “hipster porn” to see what would happen. I sifted through a few sites with no reaction. Then I found thathipsterporn.org and it I gave me a feeling of lightness. Something in my chest felt like it melted, like a fist released it’s fingers. I fell asleep quickly.

A frequent insomniac, I looked at the site a few times after this experience to see if the feeling was just an isolated incident. But it wasn’t: it kept happening. The same lightness. I wondered why. The best explanation I can think of applies Lacan’s master’s discourse to hipsters in the following way.

This is Lacan’s matheme for the master’s discourse. If we define a hipster as an individual belonging to the group of individuals who believe they don’t belong to any group, then this absurd (non)belonging is the hipster’s master signifier (S1). The barred subject, what hipsters don’t want to talk about (barred S, beneath S1) is that we are actually a group, a set of people conforming to one another in a particular set of ways. The knowledge required to conform is the hipster’s slave knowledge (S2): the ironic, apathetic cannon of fashions and behaviors you catalog so well in your work. The objet a (below S2) is whatever visceral unconscious material our slave knowledge forces into repression. This is the Hipster’s master discourse.

The nut of my idea is that hipster porn achieves/expresses/embodies Lacan’s discourse of the analyst, which is the master discourse turned on its head (I can’t find a picture of it anywhere). When the hipster’s barred subject–that we belong to a group–flips and takes precedence over the hipster’s master signifier, and the hipster’s objet a–repressed unconscious material–takes it’s place over the hipster’s slave knowledge, all the things hipsters don’t want to admit or talk about are made explicit. These things, the content of hipster porn, are brought forward and presented to us directly. This is hipster psychoanalysis.

It’s an exciting prospect. What the hipster feels in the analyst’s discourse is pure belonging, the opposite of ironic apathy. This belonging is integrated wholeness, a co-incidence of public and private selves. Hipster pornography is therefore a discourse of authenticity.

Zizek wrote that beauty and shame are similar for Lacan because they both mark a limit. This is especially true for hipsters. Our pornography, the presentation of that which is shameful for us, inspires that which is most beautiful about humanity in general: a realization of self with others in honesty.

What do you think?

Sincerely,
David

P.S. The following image is an interesting example: note the woman’s dream-catcher tattoo, posture, and facial expression; also the decor of the room, particularly the pillow in contrast with the blanket, pillows, and wall.

If You’re A Hipster And You Know It, Clap Your Hands!

N+1 held launched Mark Greif et al’s “What Was the Hipster? A Sociological Study” this past Friday. Greif, a professor at the New School and N+1 editor, brings the philosophical discourse on hipsters to an academic level in this series of essays and commentaries.

It’s important work. Hipsters, though the butt of many jokes, are the occasion for engagement with our time in history. Though not everyone may have been a hippie, for example, that group is still a locus for important questions that define a historical period. By identifying or not identifying with the group– analyzing the literary, musical, fashion, philosophical, and psychoanalytical  streams present in it–we explore what we are and aren’t members of. It’s a locus, an opportunity, an occasion to explore how we’re participating in history.

Hipsters, for better or worse, are a window to our own moment. Getting clear about what they are will help us get clear about what we are. Greif’s project helps us do this. It covers important ground. But we should go further.

A few weeks ago I wrote my most-read blog post ever, a short essay called “Hipster Defined” where I define hipsters set-theoretically as the group whose members believe they’re not members of any group. This definition entails a formal set-theoretic paradox (what I call the Hipster’s Paradox) since hipsters compose a group, but to be a member of this group one must believe one is not a member of any group whatsoever.

This definition also entails an existential explanation for the term’s pejorative use. Here we are, a group of people trying not to conform but doing so together according to rules we must follow. We’re non-conformists conforming. In that sense the hipster is absurd: there’s a clear reality–that we’re part of a group–but we behave and speak as though we’re not members of any group.

In this way I found Greif’s account histiographically rich but definitionally clunky. His approach doesn’t offer a clear definition. Rather, in line with most of the critical hipster cannon, he provides lists of colorful exemplars alongside a variety of relevant social theories.

In addition to being complex (and possibly ironically self-reflexive) I find this approach politically deflating. It doesn’t offer anything for the future. It doesn’t tell us what to do next, what to make of this hipsterism, how to evolve into something new.

But there is a way to do this. Let’s say we are, in fact, members of a group whose members don’t believe they’re members of any group. If we identify as hipsters, if each of us says “Yes. I am a hipster” then we’ll no longer be absurd. We’d recognize ourselves as being members of a groWe’ll recognize our place in history and achieve a radical authenticity. Our public selves will merge with our private selves and we can just be. We can live in the world, be in it without lies or apathy or disappointment. This would be a psychoanalytic revolution. We’d feel a release. A relief. The heaviness of the hipster would dissolve into self co-incidence and self-centricity.

It doesn’t end there. When I admit I’m the member of a group whose members don’t believe they’re in any group, I’m not part of the group anymore.  I believe I’m the member of a group. The hipster definition is violated. I no longer fit it. I can move on. Once I admit I’m a hipster I’m no longer a hipster. I’m just myself.  And this is a radically human conclusion: I’m a contradiction. I’m part of a group and not part of it. I’m free of society but still bound by it.

At the book release I told Greif about my argument. An extremely warm individual, he laughed and nodded and took it seriously. He said my idea begins where his book ends, that he can’t admit he’s a hipster because he just can’t identify with the group. He said this was a function of his age. He told me that he gave a lecture on hipsters at a university recently and during the question/answer period a young student, obviously a hipster, asked him: “I’m a hipster, what should I do?” Greif said he couldn’t sympathize with her. He told her, “I’m not sure.”

That student had the answer. She admitted she’s a hipster. In that moment of self-awareness she produced the possibility for an answer to her own question. When you admit you’re a hipster you’ll no longer be one and the time for a new moment of authenticity arrives. You’re yourself. You’re free. Celebrate this! If you’re a hipster and you know it, clap your hands!

 

N+1 declares hipsters dead. This fact is proof to the contrary.

N+1 is publishing a sociological investigation of hipsters.  They argue there is no such thing. (Via Huffington Post)

Though I haven’t read it yet, the book is probably proof against itself. The argument that hipsters are dead is evidence that hipsters are alive and well. Since a hipster is a member of a set that believes it’s not a member of any set, s/he will obviously affirm that there is no such thing as a hipster. According to the formula, by definition, if you assert that there’s no such thing a hipster then you’re actually denying that there’s no such thing as a hipster–which means that there is such a thing as a hipster. By extension if you believe hipsters are dead then it’s actually true that hipsters are alive. Further, by extrapolation, the reason you believe that hipsters are dead is probably because you’re actually a member of the group. This is intuitive: only hipsters talk about hipsters. Only people who have disdain for group membership would make such a claim.

The only way to prove that hipsters are dead is to never think or talk about them.  But this is very difficult given the concept’s powerful grasp in contemporary (elite) discourse.

As I argue in ‘Hipster defined’ the only way to negate the hipster-concept is to admit that you are a hipster. Then you achieve authenticity. So long as you fail to accept your hipster-fate along with the rest of us you’ll be going in skinny-jeaned circles, whether you’re wearing a pair or not.

Hipster defined.

Table of Contents:

(1) Statement of Question, (2) Instant Anthropological Data, (3) Formal Analysis, (4) Discussion of Analysis, (5) The Hipster’s Problem, (6) Formal Proof of Hipster’s Paradox, (7) ‘Hipster’ Defined, (8) Discussion: Hipsters are Absurd and Insulting, (9) Tragic Though Hopeful Admission of Author, (10) Clarion Call to Action.

1) STATEMENT OF QUESTION

The majority of the mainstream literature about hipsters is negative in tone but really asks a question of definition. What is a hipster?

2) INSTANT ANTHROPOLOGICAL DATA

Using convoflow.com and interceder.net I searched for the term ‘hipster’ this morning and found the following videos:

3) FORMAL ANALYSIS

This is the Hipster’s Formula:

x e H : [not (x e M)], where M = {m1, m2, m3…mn}

x is a member of the set H such that it’s not the case that x is a member of the set M, where M is a series of various mainstreams.

4) DISCUSSION OF ANALYSIS

To be a member of a set, a thing must have at least one quality. This quality is represented by predicate expressed in natural language: “…is (blank).” For example, let R be the set of all red things. To be a member of R, a thing must have the quality of redness. The predicate here is “…is red.”

Let H be the set of all hipsters. Given the Hipster Formula, the predicate on the hipster set is “…is not a member of M,” where M is the set of various mainstreams.

That is, the quality a thing has to have to be a member of the hipster set is that it doesn’t belong to another series of sets. The predicate on on H is more akin to “…is not a member of any set.”

The hipster is therefore defined by non-belonging. This is problematic. In the Hipster’s Formula there’s the membership sign ‘e‘, which denotes belonging. A hipster is defined by not-belonging, but yet belongs.

5) THE HIPSTER’S PROBLEM

From the above videos it’s clear that hipsters desire not to be included in any set but their own. They claim independence from any other set. Represented formally:

x e H : [not (x e S)]

x is a member of H such that it’s not the case that x belongs to any set.

Here, S is a placeholder for any set in the set of all sets. S could be any set. Observe that H is a set. This is the hipster’s problem. Their desire constitutes a paradox.

6) FORMAL PROOF OF HIPSTER’S PARADOX

(a) Every member of the hipster set belongs to a set, H.
(b) The predicate on H is “…doesn’t belong to any set.”
(c) H is itself a set, belonging to the set of all sets.
(d) Hipsters, belonging to a set and the set of all sets, define themselves as not belonging to any set.

7) ‘HIPSTER’ DEFINED

I offer line (d) in the above proof as a definition of ‘hipster’. A hipster is someone that belongs to a set that defines itself as not belonging to any set.

8. DISCUSSION: HIPSTERS ARE ABSURD AND INSULTING

What we find constant in the hipster literature (videos, music, fiction, non-fiction, etc) is a desire to not be part of any group. This is a constant state of irony, the most appropriate definition of which may be found in Donald Barthelme’s short story “Kierkegaard unfair to Shlegl.” To paraphrase, Barthelme writes that irony occurs when an individual takes away the reality of a thing in order to be free from it. Hipsters are ironic about everything because they desire to be free from everything: free from categorization, free from definition, free from any association. This irony is the subject of criticism for good reason. The hipster’s irony is founded on a non-sensical ground: they attempt collectively to not be members of any collective. Their group is composed of members that want not to be members of any group. They are, in Camus’ sense, absurd. Their desires and actions are convinced of a reality that is clearly not the case. They live a farce of independence, believing they aren’t members of any group while defining their group in this way.

This existential absurdity is compounded in a Marxist light. Living in a hierarchically capitalist society, hipsters are members of the middle-to-upper-middle class. They are bourgeois. They are the bourgeois who, by definition, don’t want to be bourgeois.  But their membership in the bourgeois is what enables them to want not to be bourgeois. Beyond absurd, this makes the hipster an insult to every other economic group: those that have wealth and want it and those that don’t have wealth and want it. Beyond absurd, the hipster is insulting. This explains why the term ‘hipster’ is more commonly used as an accusation than anything else.

9) TRAGIC THOUGH HOPEFUL ADMISSION OF AUTHOR

I admit to being a hipster. I have many qualities that identify me with this group. I’m therefore tragic. In my definition of “them” I’ve described hipsters from a removed, third-person voice. I attempt not to be hipster by being ironic, but in this attempt I become hipster.

However, there is hope in this tragedy.

If I say I’m a hipster I negate the hipster’s absurdity. When I include myself in the group that wants not to be members of any group, I include myself in a group. If I do this then I’m no longer absurd because I recognize that I am a member of a group that wants not to be members of any group. If all hipsters  do this, if we say that we are in fact hipsters, we will no longer be absurd. If we include ourselves as members of a group that recognizes its desire not to be members of any group we will achieve authenticity.

If we unite in the truth of ourselves we will become ourselves.

10) CLARION CALL TO ACTION

HIPSTERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

There’s a facet of my socioeconomic-generational set’s consciousness that is feckless, effete, unengaged, delusional, and inconsistent: On Shane Jones’s novel “Light Boxes.”

I’ll start by saying I live in Brooklyn, I wear plaid shirts, I ride a bike, I say the word “sustainable” to describe things that I think are cool, I’m from the upper-middle class, I’m white, I go to graduate school, I like Wes Anderson movies, I like indie rockers, I’m a naive socialist, I think about growing my own food, I try to not use petroleum but I actually use a lot, I play guitar and banjo and ukulele, I use a computer all the time, I have this blog, I have other blogs, I like photography and drawing, I read novels, and I read literary magazines.

That is to say: I’m a hipster. At the very least I’m part of a socioeconomic-generational set that looks over its shoulder constantly wondering if it’s a hipster.

I don’t want to write about hipsters, per se. I want to write about the novel “Light Boxes” by Shane Jones.

I want to propose the following : (1) Shane Jones’s “Light Boxes” represents a facet of the consciousness of my socioeconomic-generational set. (2) Shane Jones’s “Light Boxes” is feckless, effete, unengaged, delusional, and inconsistent. Therefore (conclusion), A facet of the consciousness of my socioeconomic-generational set is feckless, effete, unengaged, delusional, and inconsistent.

(1)

The novel was published by Penguin Group (after Publishing Genius Press put out a chapbook of it). Penguin has published many well-known, highly regarded writers. It is a publisher that imbues its literature with legitimacy. The fact that Penguin chose to publish “Light Boxes” should indicate to us that the novel might carry this legitimacy. At the very least, this means the novel should be analyzed and contextualized; that is, used for the extrapolation of truths about the people and the historical moment surrounding its creation.

Shane Jones was born in 1980. In the acknowledgments section, he thanks a series of young writers by name and, more generally, “the world of online literature and independent literature.” Here are the people and the historical moment that produced this book: educated individuals/writers under or around 30 in the year 2010 somewhere in the English-speaking Global North.

That’s my socioeconomic-generational set.

(2)

This is a summary of the story, found on the back cover of the book and on Shane Jones’s website:

“The inhabitants of a closely-knit town are experiencing perpetual February, and that means unending cold and darkness. It turns out that a god-like spirit, named February, is punishing the town for flying, and bans flight of all kind, including hot air balloons and even children’s kites. It’s February who makes the sun nothing but a faint memory, who blankets the ground with snow, who freezes the rivers and the lakes. As the punishing weather continues, children go missing and adults become nearly catatonic with depression, all but giving up hope. But others find the strength to fight back—and launch a war against February.”

Here is why I think the book is feckless, effete, unengaged, delusional, and inconsistent:

(a) There are metaphors instead of analogies, but the metaphors don’t actually mean anything. Opening to a random page, I read the line “Her bed is a mound of snow and teeth.” Why?

(b) Like its metaphors, the book is just a perceptual canvas with no purpose, like the clothing store Urban Outfitters and the movie “Where The Wild Things Are” (which was directed by Spike Jonze, who wants to make a movie out of “Light Boxes.”)

(c) There is constant mention of ‘clouds’.

(d) It made me write this in the margin on page 26: “it’s as if we can occupy a fantasy world of two-dimensional humanity hoping that truth will come to us. we sit and read literature like this as if we’re eunuchs in some feudal court, prancing around with velvet clothes and bells attached to our shoes trying out-somersault one another while beyond the windowless walls of the castle billions of people live dynamic and variegated lives, in many cases suffering at our expense.”

(e) There are lists throughout the book, as though it were a draft.

(f) Some pages have only one sentence.

(g) The sentences all sound like this one: “I vomit ice cubes.”

(h) Thaddeus, the main character, doesn’t react when Bianca, his daughter, is killed. Many similar moments of emotion are skipped or merely sketched.

(i) It’s sort of fantasy, but sort of not. For example: Thaddeus goes to a group of owls and asks them where his daughter is and “remembers that owls don’t talk.” He feels foolish for thinking that they do, but throughout the book ants carry things out of the stomachs of foxes who have ripped them open themselves and bears wear coats with buttons and veins grow from the slit veins of men living in the sky.

(j) The novel is about writing novels.

(k) Is it really a novel? It can’t be more than 20,000 words.

(l) Chapter titles are inconsistent. For example: Sometimes a chapter with the first-person account of a member of the war effort is called “War Member,” but other times these chapters are called “War Effort Member.”

(m) The “evil” villain is a depressed writer that feels guilty for being depressed. There are no other evils than this.

**

Given premises (1) and (2), we must conclude that there’s a facet of my socioeconomic-generational set’s consciousness that is feckless, effete, unengaged, delusional, and inconsistent.

I’m a member of this set, which is frustrating. When I finished the book I threw it on the floor and looked at myself in the mirror and I asked, “Really?”