Hipsters are illogical

[1487610420]

No, because most people's brains aren't specialized to appreciate auditory complexity in the same way as great composers. It's the same with any human activity.

This post made no sense.

 

[Thalassa]

This post made no sense.

Yeah especially since some of the classical composers were considered popular in their time.

 

[Lexicon]

Okay but seriously musicians have to make money to live.

Yeah, this is something I try to take into consideration about musicians who do change their sound because it sells. A lot of them still play their favorites, or new stuff, at live shows. They don't stop making their own stuff entirely. The need for compromise to take part in the stupidly necessary 'money' system is understandable.

I've actually taken this into consideration for my own artistic pursuits.. acting is my passion. While my background is in live stage, and to me, there's nothing like being inside a theater, participating in creating this world, this story, relying on the strength of the interaction to pull the audience into the story, feel it's real, without CGI or real buildings, etc.. I do understand that narrowing my options with regard to performing, will not help me take care of myself, financially. Extra work is more accessible, and can pay quite well, and voiceover work for various projects- tutorials, audiobooks can, as well.

I used to think, that pursuing anything else within the realm of acting outside what I'm really passionate about would suck the life out of the creative experience, for me. But then, when I force myself to think about it practically, I realized, hey I need money to care for my basic needs. I'd rather spend X amount of hours doing SOMETHING close to what I love - and be paid for it- than only work some other totally unrelated job I'll waste hours of my life in. (ofc, people don't often rely on acting/music as a sole means of stable income, so while I'll still be working somewhere else, it'll be part-time and flexible)

Point being, we can't always overtly express our ideals.. it doesn't always have to detract from the artistic elements.

 

[Viridian]

As long as the creator is making music that they love, whatever that means to them, and not diluting it to appeal to anyone else in particular, I'd still call it art, & not manufactured garbage. Sometimes it catches on, and a lot of people like it. Sometimes only a select group like it. There's a genre called ''noise'' - and while I can't stand it, I still consider it art/human expression. Some human expression is bound to be awesome or retarded to others; it's a coin toss, perhaps.

It does make me wonder how we're supposed to define "selling out". Is every artist that makes some sort of concession a sellout? Writers who divide their work in chapters? Authors whose works are available as mass-market paperbacks and e-books? Musicians who sells CDs and audio files instead of performing only live? Directors who use exposition in movies and plays? Writers who let their work be adapted into the big screen? Artists who agree to appear on talk shows to promote their latest work?

And, if art is solely about expression, what is the role of critique?

 

[1487610420]

I don't really bother with attaching identity to indumentary or musical choices. I can identify the usefulness to adapt to social settings to serve a specific purpose, if need, e.g. job interview/professional image. I've done that on the casual social level in order to merge within a specific setting, but again, it's the same thing, not because I have some kind of personal need. Same goes for choices of music, I can be influenced to hear something new, like other ppl sharing, which is mostly the way I come into contact with new stuff these days - often I'll search for past material from said artist, and then I'll filter it all through my own preferences, sometimes keeping some either old or new, depending on how it resonates with my own tastes, and not due to some social cliche.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

No, because most people's brains aren't specialized to appreciate auditory complexity in the same way as great composers. It's the same with any human activity. Generally great composers write for themselves privately and hit more general overtones in their work for profit. Some of the greats find a way to transcend both worlds though

You're making "complexity" a requirement for artistic merit, which is demonstrably false. In addition, I strongly believe that art is communication, and part of making great art is being able to communicate your ideas. A poem written in Latin and read to an audience who speaks only English has no value whatsoever, no matter how skilfully or meticulously it was written.

 

[Lexicon]

It does make me wonder how we're supposed to define "selling out". Is every artist that makes some sort of concession a sellout? Writers who divide their work in chapters? Authors whose works are available as mass-market paperbacks and e-books? Musicians who sells CDs and audio files instead of performing only live? Directors who use exposition in movies and plays? Writers who let their work be adapted into the big screen? Artists who agree to appear on talk shows to promote their latest work?

And, if art is solely about expression, what is the role of critique?

I think most of these questioned can be set aside by letting go of the conceptual ''supposed to,'' if that makes sense.
It's human, it's subjective. I can't see any objective defining term or static ''should be'' attached to creative exercises of subjective expression, and we can only speculate what motivates others.. only they really understand their own truths.

 

[UniqueMixture]

This post made no sense.

Why not? People who do an activity for long periods of time tend to notice more variances in it than people who do not. This is also true of people who are exposed to more variety in the subject.

Anyways, I updated my original post but I still say what the man on the street would pick as "the best" wouldn't match what someone who was classically trained AND who enjoyed a wide range of genres would pick.

[MENTION=122]marm[/MENTION]ie: how could it be popular when the common people didn't have access to it for the most part? Most "technically good" music historically was commissioned by aristocrats.

@effemdoubleyew: that's exactly what I believe, technically good music is not as accessible to people who have no musical training, exposure, or natural talent for it. I disagree with the complexity thing though. Usually this is overcome by taking something very simple and doing a lot with it. Like Beethoven and those famous 3 notes.

 

[Thalassa]

You're making "complexity" a requirement for artistic merit, which is demonstrably false. In addition, I strongly believe that art is communication, and part of making great art is being able to communicate your ideas. A poem written in Latin and read to an audience who speaks only English has no value whatsoever, no matter how skilfully or meticulously it was written.

I can tell you that I think (as me, with my personality and preferences) that epic poetry is utterly lame and is probably much more exciting if you actually *live in that culture* and *you care about the things described* and if it's performed live (like Japanese epic poems were originally intended to be sung in Kabuki theater).

For that reason, I seem to be able to enjoy modern, specific-to-my-own-culture interpretations of The Odyssey, like Cold Mountain and O Brother Where Art Thou? despite my supreme boredom with the original work.

 

[1487610420]

Why not? People who do an activity for long periods of time tend to notice more variances in it than people who do not. This is also true of people who are exposed to more variety in the subject.

Anyways, I updated my original post but I still say what the man on the street would pick as "the best" wouldn't match what someone who was classically trained AND who enjoyed a wide range of genres would pick.

[MENTION=122]marm[/MENTION]ie: how could it be popular when the common people didn't have access to it for the most part? Most "technically good" music historically was commissioned by aristocrats.

@effemdoubleyew: that's exactly what I believe, technically good music is not as accessible to people who have no musical training, exposure, or natural talent for it. I disagree with the complexity thing though. Usually this is overcome by taking something very simple and doing a lot with it. Like Beethoven and those famous 3 notes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Thalassa]

[MENTION=122]marm[/MENTION]ie: how could it be popular when the common people didn't have access to it for the most part? Most "technically good" music historically was commissioned by aristocrats.

The aristocracy (and later the middle class) ...all they had in their favor was education. They weren't necessarily musicians themselves, that's absurd. And there are people who are not trained musicians who enjoy classical music.

I agree with you to some extent about "folk music" because more educated people tend to listen to a variety of music or more complex music, even if they also listen to folk music.

However, those educated people aren't always musically gifted or classically trained themselves.

And there's a big difference between the person who likes the popular artists I listed, and someone who listens to ONLY very repetitive pop or country music.

Me thinks you oversimplify.

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

I'm too stoned/laid back to a point where I end up not giving a f**k.... so whatever... I'm gonna do my own thing and to heck with the rest of the world.

Be you, be true. I am me, ILB.

Hey forum

 

[Stanton Moore]

blah...

 

[CzeCze]

Why do Hipsters only listen to "non-mainstream" music? Then, once their favorite artist gets big (mainstream) they stop listening to them because they are too "mainstream" at that point. This seems like an illogical contradiction because many artists aspire to get to the top and make it "big" but it seems like they never could do this and be a true hipster. Discuss.

Back off, Dood. What is so illogical about wearing thick black plastic glasses with no lenses and paying a 200% mark up on PBR because it's "ironic"?

This is what I think about your senseless jibes against hipsters in fake glasses:

 

[The Great One]

Back off, Dood. What is so illogical about wearing thick black plastic glasses with no lenses and paying a 200% mark up on PBR because it's "ironic"?

This is what I think about your senseless jibes against hipsters in fake glasses:

Failure.

 

[Orangey]

I don't really bother with attaching identity to indumentary or musical choices.

Same, and I rather detest people who do. How can you claim to enjoy the thing-itself (anything, really, from music to ideas) when your preferences are functioning in the service of your ego? These people who do this are inauthentic from the start and incapable of experiencing pleasure or perceiving beauty.

Hipsters are perhaps the most obvious and gauche about engaging in this type of "my taste is my identity" shit, and yeah it's fucking annoying, but at least in their idiotic inability to detect their own hypocrisy they are more outwardly honest (not that they would be if they weren't so stupid) than some of the more insidiously pretentious people.

 

[CzeCze]

I like fashionable people, I like people who aren't afraid to let some of your own style show. The term "hipster" has blown up so much it's almost as meaningless as "punk" especially when you Widen the demographic to include high schoolers. I give props where props are due, if you actually have some style sense I don't care what label you give yourself or others give you.

BTW the only cities where real hipsters live IMHO are LA, SF, NYC, and Richmond, VA which is inexplicably the birthplace of hipsterdom. Wearing skinny jeans and riding a fixie does not in my book a hipster make, but hey,at this point a hipster is whatever you want it to be.

 

[Lady_X]

I like people with style too. The majority of my friends I'm Dallas had style and appreciated art and great music and food and interesting places and having interesting talks n stuff.

Not one one of them gave a shit if my music was their music or what label my jeans were etc etc but pretty sure most people here would point them out as hipsters and I think it's silly/ stupid/ridiculous/ pointless.

But okay... There's all kinds of prejudices. I'm proud not to participate.

 

[mujigay]

Can't honestly say that I have a problem with "hipsters", one way or another. I just consider it a bunch of people trying on personalities like one would try on different sweaters. In fact, it's probably a pretty convenient method of controlling the way that people view you; give them a convenient label to file you under and then get on with it. Also, it's a pretty good shortcut for "young and in the know" and the hipsters I know seem to get in to the most raucous parties or social gatherings by way of unwritten "hipster" dress codes.

They'll grow out of it eventually anyway, and then their future children or buddies can all point to photographs of them wearing stupid clothes and listening to pointless music and get a good laugh.

 

[Pinker85]

We all want different things and build our identities/lives different ways. I think that the only offensive thing I possibly find about hipsters or anyone for that matter is when they don't respect that we all want different things in life. I've known some hippies that were really quite critical and not particularly open that we all have different paths in life to take. It's like a hypocrisy to not acknowledge that most humans have some type of identity and a group they build/conform themselves to. From my experience it seems we all do it. I'm not sure why it has to be thought of with hostility and not just humor that we're all so wrapped up with our own stories. The silliness of someone judging us based on our looks when we are so much more and the silliness of our doing the same. That in a way most of us want validation and to feel we're special or belong . . . to like see this in others and ourselves and be charitable that we all might feel truly good one day. It seems to me that when I start down the path of how this or that person is somehow foolish in this or that way it is like clinging to my own identity or a kinda insecurity that feels internally like lacking peace in my own life. Just my experience though. Have no idea how it is for other people.