I get the feeling my new camera will usher in an era of arch narcissism for me. I'm not worried, though, because that sort of thing is apparently forgiven, even encouraged on the hipster internet.

I've been wondering over the notion of the "hipster", because I think it's a social archetype that radiates genuine power. Right now I can think of specific people I know who think there is some other world of coolness that they don't quite have access to. I myself buy into it all the time. Because who's to say whether or not there's anything behind the image?

A lot of critical theory I've been reading attacks cultural trends that can be very basically summed up by the old injustice of style being valued over substance. Everybody judges the book by its cover. It's a problem that's often linked to capitalism. Capitalism, whether or not you agree with the ideology, ignores the use value of commodities in favour of their exchange value--the price they'd pull in the marketplace. That's how totally useless shit can still be worth bags of money, just for its look or its rarity. Exchange value is heavily biased in favour of style. We're more willing to spend big money on something that seems like it's going to be great , regardless of how completely shallow and stupid we are for doing so.

I think much of "hipster" culture--and I'm thinking specifically of electroclash and Vice Magazine when I say this, but there are all kinds of examples--is a symptom of the eradication of use value. As long as something appears to be cool, it probably is. As long as a person exudes disdain for everybody else, they're probably better than you.

Jean Baudrillard wrote a whole book about how appearance and actuality are effectively equivalent because you can't tell the difference between the two. There's no difference between looking hip and being hip. Not on the internet, anyway. Not in photography.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment
(Comments take a few minutes to appear!)