Is hipsterism dead? Or was it already dying?

efiImage by Getty Images via DaylifeThe impact of the Barack Obama presidency is already beginning to be felt in traditionally leftist circles. Mike Daisey has already talked about how If You See Something Say Something his unscripted show attacking the military industrial complex, has already taken a different tone since the election. Jon Stewart commented on New Yorkers who are actually making eye contact. Before Obama even does a day's work as president, he has alreay inspired traditional liberals to change their minds about America in a big way. Hipsters, this decades' description of the young, artistic, independent-minded, have been buzzing. But the Obama victory may have sealed the deal on a generational shift that has occured countless times in decades previous.

Adbusters, the publication that brought you one of the most heatedly debated anti-hipster articles, has already published an article declaring apathy dead after the Obama victory. But some are deflecting the victory, saying the term hipster has been overused and misused so much that hipsterism has no meaning anymore. I have debated this topic on the Prefix forums repeatedly. But make no mistake: hipsterism has peaked; anyone who says that the term hipster has lost all its meaning is using a hipster tactic to deflect the discussion they so sorely need to have, with themselves as much as with others.

Let's be clear on one thing: the definition of what we think of when the think of the present-day hipster is easily definable. The modern hipster is a liberal arts college graduate who appreciates so-called "low" cultural works of "art" that are crude, low-quality or heavily commercialized because it is ironic. This is justified with postmodernism: If no one can develop a universal standard of what's good or bad, how can anyone say Troll 2 or Warrant is good or bad? Often, this is used to justify personal incongruities (how can I like avant-gare sculpture artists when I also appreciate the NFL)? This definition of hipster is tied to a political sense of apathy/nihilism inherited from Generation X, where a disdain for the effectiveness of politics leads youths to remove themselves from the conversation entirely.

This definition, we can all admit, has become garbled. Now, anyone can shop at American Apparel or listen to Joann Newsome and call themselves a hipster. Some will say this renders the term meaningless. But notice how saying that the definition of a word loses all its original meaning reeks of postmodern speak? And notice how admitting that lost meaning allows one to continue in the hipster mindset? One of the strongest traits of postmodernism is its infallibility—anything can be explained away in postmodernism. A whole generation has already explained away the Bush presidency. This mindset has been around for awhile.

At their core, however, humans need something to believe in, and can't remove themselves from the conversation forever. That's why I'm arguing that the election of Barack Obama is more of a symptom of a younger generation's dismissal of postmodernism-based apathy than a cause. Obama was not only a mixed racial, progressive liberal candidate for the Presidency: he was actually one who had a chance of being elected. By placing a tangible, achievable goal in front of a generation who for 8 years had felt hopeless under a Bush presidency, Obama's candidacy woke up a younger generation that was desperate for a cause but couldn't be heartbroken another time.

So yes, hipsterism has been taken over by a look and a marketing tactic. But so were the flappers, beats, hippies, punks, and Yuppies. The link that connects all of these phenomenons were that when these generational steretypes first emerged, they were new, radical and exciting. Once they became institutionalized, they ceased to be interesting, and a new tradition was paved. Hipsterism is in decline, and something new is in store. I can't predict what it will be, but I will say that apathy is nothing new to human nature. It's intellectual justification was. Keep in mind that many Obama supporters this time around were too young to fully experience the dissapointment of 2000 or 2004, This is a generation younger than the traditional hipster, one that is finally realizing that it's anger, frustrations, and importance cannot be explained away. no matter how much the increasingly graying hipsters try.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Michael Hais and Morley Winograd: It's Official: Millennials Realigned American Politics in 2008
• A New Birth of Freedom - Now Is the Time
• And I'm Barack Obama: The post-election afterglow ... [Defamer Decides 2008]

Titus Andronicus Redux: Has Post-modernism Gone Too Far

It's virtually impossible to do Titus Andronicus straight. Even by today's standards, the play's a bloodbath, which has led the likes of T.S. Elliot and Harold Bloom to dismiss the play as one of Shakespeare's worst. Bloom himself speculated that the best person to direct Titus would be Mel Brooks, and while Charles Newell of the Court Theater is not inherently a funny man, he's tried to honor the schlock value of the play with a production of Titus that consistently maintains a wink of the eye to the audience. Hidden in the program is the line "adapted by Charles Newell," but that credit should be taken to heart. Newell's production is staged as a banquet for contemporary soldiers performing Titus melodramatically in jest, carrying scripts and messing up cues. While the initial murders are played in jest, eventually reality overtakes the evening, as art takes over life (or what we're supposed to believe is life). Newell's Titus has as much to do with Shakespeare as a Seder has to do with Exodus.

The problem with adaptations like these, where lines are added and new dimensions opened, is not necessarily matter of Shakespeare purism. The issue is that when people go to a Shakespeare play, even one as ridiculous as Titus, they go to see Shakespeare. True, Newell will be the one judged by the production no matter what he does, but trying to revise Shakespeare outright is more likely to offend your audience than win them over. While the audience laughed at some of Newell's touches, they were mostly cheap laughs. At the end of the night, the audience left the theater feeling cheated.

The other problem is that when you compare your own writing to Shakespeare, even a young, immature Shakespeare, you're bound to lose. While not one of his best plays, Titus still has remarkable poetry and tragic characterizations, which trump Newell's additions even while being suffocated by Newell. Hence, the production feels like there's a better play to be found underneath what's really being seen.

"But look at me!" Newell says. "I'm revising Shakespeare!" Sorry, but that act is not inherently in and of itself noteworthy. The Court's production stretches the limits of postmodernism, and in doing so displays post-modern dramatic theory's inherent weaknesses: revisionism for the sake of revisionism does not make for a satisfying night of theater. When the production finally tries to take itself seriously, it's not believable. The production was clearly intently thought out, rigorously rehearsed, and features impressive technical design and skilled actors. Despite all that, it still feels lazy and insincere. There's no clear vision for the play, other than to say there is no vision. If I wanted to understand that there was no need for vision, I could have stayed at home on a freezing Saturday night curled up with a book of Derrida essays.