Pick up your cameras and use them.

I had the most singularly amazing moment on my bicycle today. I had to drop something off at the study abroad office, so instead of my normal route home (which is just to ride up Speedway), I rode through West Campus (stopping at Junior's to chat with Jeremy), then turned onto 34th so that I could cross Guadalupe and get back to Speedway. I pulled up behind the cars waiting for the light to change, when suddenly the day's peace was shattered. The Toyota directly in front of me had all of its windows open as it sat, waiting for the green, the quiet of a rainy afternoon as people lunched on the patio of Food Head's. I dropped my toes to the ground, when a dog poked its head out of the passenger side window of the Toyota, turned around to peer at me. "WOOF!"

Apparently, this was the go sign, because a black pitt's head appeared through the rear driver side window, only to be quickly joined by a black lab which materialized at the rear passenger window. The normal sedan in front of me ahd been transformed into a barking motorcade. As I sat at the stoplight, three large dogs, each with their own open window, barking backwards at me, I leaned forward a bit over my handlebars, smiling. Wait, what was that? Was that? Yes... Yes. It was a little Boston Terrier in the rear window, on the back of the seats, jumping in the window and barking at me as well. I had four dogs in front of me, each with its own window, barking at me. It was fantastic.

Yesterday, Fidel posted an article to /r/snobs, titled "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization," then blogged about it. He seemed to generally support the article, but I think it's vapid, foppish swill. I'm about to join that party.

To sum up the article, hipsters are destroying culture because they take everything and give nothing back, acting as mindless consumers in the name of independent individuality. Give me a break.

An artificial appropriation of different styles from different eras, the hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture lost in the superficiality of its past and unable to create any new meaning. Not only is it unsustainable, it is suicidal. While previous youth movements have challenged the dysfunction and decadence of their elders, today we have the “hipster” – a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society.

Poor Mr. Haddow. The 20th century in America is rife with examples of youth movements that haven't "challenged the dysfunction and decadence of their elders." Examples that immediately come to mind are the youth of the 1920's (women drinking, smoking, and swearing is hardly challenging dysfunction and is certainly glorifying decadence); the "countercultural" youth of the late 1960's and early 1970's, who defined coolness" by running away from the midwest to become a homeless, hapless drug addicts in Haight-Ashbury, who justified a life of theft with by idea of being "revolutionary" and raping women by the idea of "sexual freedom"; the entire youth "movement" of the 1980's, which glammified heavy metal, leotards, and big hair, as well as sex and drugs; and even more recently, the grunge movement of the early 1990's which was co-opted and commercialized in such a way that its figurehead and poet laureate (who made the idea of living underneathe a bridge cool) committed suicide. Yet, to date, 21st century hipsterism is apparently the first of these subcultures to mirror the "doomed shallowness of mainstream society."

Take a stroll down the street in any major North American or European city and you’ll be sure to see a speckle of fashion-conscious twentysomethings hanging about and sporting a number of predictable stylistic trademarks: skinny jeans, cotton spandex leggings, fixed-gear bikes, vintage flannel, fake eyeglasses and a keffiyeh – initially sported by Jewish students and Western protesters to express solidarity with Palestinians, the keffiyeh has become a completely meaningless hipster cliché fashion accessory.

This new idea of Western youth trying to be fashionable, dear God, is going to kill society. Nevermind that there is nothing wrong with wearing skinny jeans or vintage flannel or fake eyeglasses or leggings (although I personally agree that leggings are God awful). And let's not even get started on how horrible this appropriation of a meaningful symbol in the name of fashion is. This is much worse and more meaningless than wider society's adoption of Che Guevara, DARE t-shirts, POW/MIA soldier name bracelets during Vietnam, or Livestrong bracelets as markers of cool.

The American Apparel V-neck shirt, Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Parliament cigarettes are symbols and icons of working or revolutionary classes that have been appropriated by hipsterdom and drained of meaning. Ten years ago, a man wearing a plain V-neck tee and drinking a Pabst would never be accused of being a trend-follower. But in 2008, such things have become shameless clichés of a class of individuals that seek to escape their own wealth and privilege by immersing themselves in the aesthetic of the working class.

Yes, these three items have become completely devoid of meaning. They have lost the historical significance they may have once had. PBR was one of the defining brews that appeared in the US in the late 1800's, and it could truly be seen as a symbol for American history and should be upheld with such honor. The fact that today's working classes almost invariably prefer Bud Light has nothing to do with whether or not PBR still symbolizes them. Shame on hipsters for imbibing it, this symbol of such patriotism, when they could be drinking the even more tasteless, more popular beer of the contemporary working class--even if Budweiser isn't even an American company anymore. It's not what the damn beer is, it's what it stands for.

And don't even get me started on the v-neck! At least they aren't wearing Doc Marten's which "first catapulted from a working class icon to a counter-cultural icon in the 1960's" and by the mid 90's had "festered in the minds of the youth" (as per the official Doc Marten website). And thank God they weren't wearing cammo, adopting the image and symbol of the nation's fighting forces, or the Mohawk, co-opting a symbol and style of a Native American tribe from the precolonial times. Adoption of these things certainly would have resulted in the spontaneous implosion of Western civilization, but as these kids have only adopted the v-neck, we're just at a "dead end." We can still turn around!

This obsession with “street-cred” reaches its apex of absurdity as hipsters have recently and wholeheartedly adopted the fixed-gear bike as the only acceptable form of transportation – only to have brakes installed on a piece of machinery that is defined by its lack thereof.

I am relieved that Mr. Haddow pointed out this obvious hypocrisy. Sure, some states, like Texas, consider the absence of a brake on a vehicle to be illegal, but there is no way these kids would ruin the light, streamlined appearence of their bicycles so that they might be street legal! Moreover, it's not like correctly riding a brakeless fixie requires any skill or strength. What, you don't think everyone can just hop on one and be able to do that? There's no learning process! There's no need to be able to stop on a dime! It's not like cars don't cut you off or passengers open doors directly in front of you, or people step in front of your bicycle....

Lovers of apathy and irony, hipsters are connected through a global network of blogs and shops that push forth a global vision of fashion-informed aesthetics. Loosely associated with some form of creative output, they attend art parties, take lo-fi pictures with analog cameras, ride their bikes to night clubs and sweat it up at nouveau disco-coke parties. The hipster tends to religiously blog about their daily exploits, usually while leafing through generation-defining magazines like Vice, Another Magazine and Wallpaper. This cursory and stylized lifestyle has made the hipster almost universally loathed.

What makes all this all the more horrible is the fact that hipsters are using modern technology, specifically the internet, to be connected. Can you imagine?! Science has given them all sorts of tools, and the bastards are using them. To do WHAT? To plan ART PARTIES? You must be kidding. I bet they even display analog photos at these, which is completely absurd. Analog photography has never in the history of the world, had any historical or artistic importance. It's a completely worthless technology, and has always been! But let's get back to those art parties. The fact that these kids are creating anything, no matter how trite, is beyond contemptable. Couldn't they play a video game or something? Instead, they're purchasing art supplies, selling art, and having parties about it, as if art is supposed to accessible and fun. This is without a doubt the "dead end" of civilization. Personally, I would be thrilled if we were to reinstate the Academy that ruled the art world at the turn of the century. I don't want to look at Picasso or Mondrian or even those panderers like Monet or Manet. I want a classically styled portrait, and I want it now.

But beyond that, the fact that these kids are going to nightclubs on their bicycles--which one can only assume they only do so that they can be seen riding their brakeless fixed gears in skinny jeans (which never get stuck in their bicycle chains even though they don't have to roll them up--seriously, these clowns should walk around looking respectable with one pant leg rolled up like all of us normal cyclists)--is absurd. Absurd. Why these kids don't just hop in cars and drive downtown is beyond me. It's not like they would have to cruise around for half an hour looking for a free spot, ending up paying $10.00 to park in some seedy garage guarded by a leering parking lot patroller. No, driving downtown on the weekend is simple and easy and cheap as hell.

And to continue on with this paragraph, the fact that hipsters blog about their exploits AND read magazines is particularly what makes them loathful. I hate being forced to read their pathetic attempts at self publication almost as much as I hate the fact that I have to see them in coffee shops browsing their free copies of Vice magazine. Don't they know how these behaviors inconvenience and intrude upon me?

"These hipster zombies… are the idols of the style pages, the darlings of viral marketers and the marks of predatory real-estate agents,” wrote Christian Lorentzen in a Time Out New York article entitled ‘Why the Hipster Must Die.’ “And they must be buried for cool to be reborn.”

Once again, Haddow hits upon an important point here. It is the completely the hipsters' fault that style pages and viral marketers and real-estate agents are attracted to them. Can you believe that they let these "culture" and "style" magazines cover their pages with the fashions these hipsters have chosen? And can you beleive that they allow our Western, capitalistic society to market to them, trying to sell them goods and services? I know that viral campaigns are often online and that it makes sense to use that tactic to try and target consumers who use the internet, but as we already discussed above, the hipster shouldn't be online. It's the rest of us that should be the objects of these marketing campaigns.

With nothing to defend, uphold or even embrace, the idea of “hipsterdom” is left wide open for attack. And yet, it is this ironic lack of authenticity that has allowed hipsterdom to grow into a global phenomenon that is set to consume the very core of Western counterculture. Most critics make a point of attacking the hipster’s lack of individuality, but it is this stubborn obfuscation that distinguishes them from their predecessors, while allowing hipsterdom to easily blend in and mutate other social movements, sub-cultures and lifestyles.

Here, Haddow writes the obvious, that hipsters have "nothing to defend, uphold, or embrace." Why else would he write an entire 2,013 word article about them? Undertaking such a challenge clearly underscores and illustrates his prowess as a writer. He's taken a worthless topic and written an entire an essay--and to say that isn't impressive would be a blatant lie. And to suggest that it's the lack of indivuality that sets them apart, what an irony! The fact that they "blend in and mutate other social movements, sub-cultures and lifestyles" beautifully illustrates this lack of indivuality of authenticity and individuality. We all know it's impossible for anyone to have interests that lie in more than subculture, movement, or lifestyle--real individuals are devoted entirely to only one of these. The fact that this idea--that people can bridge interests, movements, and lifestyles--is going global is truly terrifying. We must act now to prevent any type of--gasp--global unity. We cannot afford to allow any sort of international community to develop, especially one that overcomes gaps between different cultural groups. Oh, the inauthenticity that would result!

Gavin McInnes, one of the founders of Vice, who recently left the magazine, is considered to be one of hipsterdom’s primary architects. But, in contrast to the majority of concerned media-types, McInnes, whose “Dos and Don’ts” commentary defined the rules of hipster fashion for over a decade, is more critical of those doing the criticizing.

“I’ve always found that word [“hipster”] is used with such disdain, like it’s always used by chubby bloggers who aren’t getting laid anymore and are bored, and they’re just so mad at these young kids for going out and getting wasted and having fun and being fashionable,” he says. “I’m dubious of these hypotheses because they always smell of an agenda.”

What is WRONG with McInnes?! He isn't mad at hipsters for "going out and getting wasted and having fun and being fashionable"? How does he not understand the sheer magnitude of the crime that these kids are committing against the entirity of Western civilization!? Young people? Having FUN? It's hard to believe that the cops haven't gotten involved, that Senate hearings haven't been convened, and that the issue hasn't come before the UN Security Council. I hope these groups pull their shit together--and pull it together soon.

Punks wear their tattered threads and studded leather jackets with honor, priding themselves on their innovative and cheap methods of self-expression and rebellion. B-boys and b-girls announce themselves to anyone within earshot with baggy gear and boomboxes. But it is rare, if not impossible, to find an individual who will proclaim themself a proud hipster. It’s an odd dance of self-identity – adamantly denying your existence while wearing clearly defined symbols that proclaims it.

Seriously. These punks with their "cheap and innovative methods of self-expression and rebellion" (none of these inexpensive vintage clothes or art parties) and these b-boys and b-girls (who drive to bars in Escalades blaring rap, so much less obnoxious than those pestering kids on fixed gears) are exactly what we should all aspire to be. Not only should we adopt a group identity, but we should be proud of it and proclaim it to anyone who listens. The fact that, as Haddow has already demonstrated, the label of "hipster" is worthless and empty means that there is absolutely no reason for these kids--or anyone else--to deny being a hipster. Hell, from now on I'll be referring to everyone I know as hipsters.

Perhaps the true motivation behind this deliberate nonchalance is an attempt to attract the attention of the ever-present party photographers, who swim through the crowd like neon sharks, flashing little blasts of phosphorescent ecstasy whenever they spot someone worth momentarily immortalizing.

Completely true. People at other parties and of other social groups do not enjoy taking photos and having photos taken. Ever been to a sorority party? Now that's a social group that abhors the camera, hiding from it at every chance. Obviously, the only real solution to this hipster-photo problem is for all of us to adopt the values of the college Greek system.

In many ways, the lifestyle promoted by hipsterdom is highly ritualized. Many of the party-goers who are subject to the photoblogger’s snapshots no doubt crawl out of bed the next afternoon and immediately re-experience the previous night’s debauchery. Red-eyed and bleary, they sit hunched over their laptops, wading through a sea of similarity to find their own (momentarily) thrilling instant of perfected hipster-ness.

Once again, I have to advocate the sorority life style in response to this rather obvious and hipster-specific fact.

What they may or may not know is that “cool-hunters” will also be skulking the same sites, taking note of how they dress and what they consume. These marketers and party-promoters get paid to co-opt youth culture and then re-sell it back at a profit. In the end, hipsters are sold what they think they invent and are spoon-fed their pre-packaged cultural livelihood.

Haddow writes almost as if we are living in a capitalistic country, as if our entire economy is built around people trying to sell us--any of us--anything we'll buy. What a foolish idea! If this were really true, there'd be an Urban Outfitters and an American Apparel in every major American city. Moreover, hipsters would be completely unaware of the fact that these two stores existed solely for the purpose of selling their own "culture" back to them at a profit.

Hipsterdom is the first “counterculture” to be born under the advertising industry’s microscope, leaving it open to constant manipulation but also forcing its participants to continually shift their interests and affiliations. Less a subculture, the hipster is a consumer group – using their capital to purchase empty authenticity and rebellion. But the moment a trend, band, sound, style or feeling gains too much exposure, it is suddenly looked upon with disdain. Hipsters cannot afford to maintain any cultural loyalties or affiliations for fear they will lose relevance.

Haddow is completely right, once again. The advertising industry, a very recent development, is only now, in the 21st century, beginning to capitalize on "countercultures" in the Western world. I mean, just because Woodstock, the apex of the 1960's countercultural movement, was planned as an extremely profitable, moneymaking, capitalist event (and was almost successful at this) means nothing. The youth movements of the 1960's were full of integrity, completely lacking consumerism. Honestly, considering the genuine purity and selflessness of all those involved in the movement, it's amazing they're not still continuing today.

And this whole hipster system of changing loyalties! Yeah, some of them might have an undying allegience to The Smiths or Joy Division or even Bright Eyes, but those bands don't count. And the fact that hipsters fall all over themselves to support bands--for one album only--is dispicable. Maybe they've ended up giving bands like Wolf Parade, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, and Vampire Weekend chances the artists never would have had otherwise, but the fact that they didn't continue to give these artists such opportunities by swearing an unconditional allegiance to them is ridiculous. Who cares that Clap Your Hands Say Yeah's second album was legitimately worse than their first? Hipsters should have bought it anyways.

An amalgamation of its own history, the youth of the West are left with consuming cool rather that creating it. The cultural zeitgeists of the past have always been sparked by furious indignation and are reactionary movements. But the hipster’s self-involved and isolated maintenance does nothing to feed cultural evolution. Western civilization’s well has run dry. The only way to avoid hitting the colossus of societal failure that looms over the horizon is for the kids to abandon this vain existence and start over.

Wait! The youth of the West are "left with consuming cool rather than creating it?" So who's creating it? And "the cultural zeitgeists of the past have always been sparked by furious indignation and are reactionary movements"? How indignant does Haddow really think Marcel Duchamp was when he submitted a urinal to his early 20th century art show? Or da-da-ism as a whole? It's hardly indignant! And pop art? Andy Warhol and Roy Lichenstein as furious? And Robert Rauschenberg! That guy only did what made him happy, and it happened to be considered genius. How about when the Beatles looked to traditional Indian music and Ravi Shankar as they created their music? They were simply recycling the past, but it's considered some of the best pop music ever created. Why do these kids need to start over? How are these kids so culturally secluded if, as Haddow mentioned earlier in his essay, they are able to "easily blend in and mutate other social movements, sub-cultures and lifestyles"? And the idea that this group of kids are going to single handedly cause the Western world to "hit the colossus of societal failure"? You have to be kidding me. And still Haddow isn't done.

The half-built condos tower above us like foreboding monoliths of our yuppie futures. I take a look at one of the girls wearing a bright pink keffiyah and carrying a Polaroid camera and think, “If only we carried rocks instead of cameras, we’d look like revolutionaries.” But instead we ignore the weapons that lie at our feet – oblivious to our own impending demise.

We are a lost generation, desperately clinging to anything that feels real, but too afraid to become it ourselves. We are a defeated generation, resigned to the hypocrisy of those before us, who once sang songs of rebellion and now sell them back to us. We are the last generation, a culmination of all previous things, destroyed by the vapidity that surrounds us. The hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture so detached and disconnected that it has stopped giving birth to anything new.

"If only we carried rocks!" Haddow laments, helpless in his own impotency. If only! If only! What creates any great movement, cultural or countercultural is a great leader. In recent struggles of Palestinians and even hipsters, cameras have acted as inaluable tools. In fact, cameras might be the greatest non-violent weapon of today. Perhaps if Haddow was to motivate and organize his peers instead of nitpicking and deriding, today's youth would be out doing something like registering their peers to vote, or inventing new film movements,
or beginning the world wide fight to save sharks or discovering how to biodegrade plastic bags in three months as sixteen-year-old, future hipsters.

Let me quote the hipster favorite The Rapture: "People don't dance no more/They just stand there like this/They cross their arms and stare you down and drink and moan and diss."

It's easy to complain. Haddow can complain about hipsters, and I can complain at Haddow. It's a vicious cycle. In the end, Haddow is one in a long line of those who have critiqued contemporary culture. He's covered no new ground in his essay, and in the end, just like what he's derided, he's left with nothing but an analog camera in his hand. Perhaps instead of complaining about today's hipster culture, Haddow should go out and create his own. But hey, why be proactive and positive when it's so much easier--and cooler--to reiterate all the things that have already been said?