Much as I and the executive hipster committee appreciate these thoughtful suggestions, none of the above-mentioned candidates warrant inclusion in the hipster hall of fame. One of them isn’t yet a part of history, at least not in the strictest sense. Plus, every name listed belongs to an insufficiently obscure person. If I don’t have to at least Google the nominee in order to refresh my memory, he or she is way too mainstream.
Still, each nomination has merit. Except perhaps for the guy who nominated himself. That’s what we call “cheek,” of which I approve, but not enough to swing wide the doors of hipster fame.
Elliott (two L’s and two T’s there) Smith made a lot of music that a lot of people who grew up to be contemporary hipsters listened to, but the fact that he enjoyed a more or less favorable critical reception during his life is not very hipster. Stabbing oneself is also not hipster. It’s something, for sure, but that something isn’t hipster. I don’t know what it is.
Disney… I just don’t think that anyone can be a tycoon of anything and a hipster at the same time. Maybe, just maybe, if one were a tycoon of an industry that nobody has ever heard of before. Alternatively, if someone were able to have been a legitimate tycoon, yet also have maintained a degree of underground obscurity, that might warrant historical hipster preservation status. As for Disney’s mustache, I’d call it “refined,” perhaps I’d even go so far as to say “dapper”; it was neither the bristly whiskers of supreme manliness, nor the curly badge of ironic knowingness befitting a modern hipster.
The McEnroe suggestion intrigues me the most, and the committee on historical hipsterism only narrowly voted him down. Despite the fact that for a brief period in the early 2010s it seemed like hipster kids all over town dressed like 1970s tennis players in headbands and short shorts, nobody can say that John McEnroe would have been anything other than mainstream in his day, at least fashionwise.
Much as I and the executive hipster committee appreciate these thoughtful suggestions, none of the above-mentioned candidates warrant inclusion in the hipster hall of fame. One of them isn’t yet a part of history, at least not in the strictest sense. Plus, every name listed belongs to an insufficiently obscure person. If I don’t have to at least Google the nominee in order to refresh my memory, he or she is way too mainstream.
Still, each nomination has merit. Except perhaps for the guy who nominated himself. That’s what we call “cheek,” of which I approve, but not enough to swing wide the doors of hipster fame.
Elliott (two L’s and two T’s there) Smith made a lot of music that a lot of people who grew up to be contemporary hipsters listened to, but the fact that he enjoyed a more or less favorable critical reception during his life is not very hipster. Stabbing oneself is also not hipster. It’s something, for sure, but that something isn’t hipster. I don’t know what it is.
Disney… I just don’t think that anyone can be a tycoon of anything and a hipster at the same time. Maybe, just maybe, if one were a tycoon of an industry that nobody has ever heard of before. Alternatively, if someone were able to have been a legitimate tycoon, yet also have maintained a degree of underground obscurity, that might warrant historical hipster preservation status. As for Disney’s mustache, I’d call it “refined,” perhaps I’d even go so far as to say “dapper”; it was neither the bristly whiskers of supreme manliness, nor the curly badge of ironic knowingness befitting a modern hipster.
The McEnroe suggestion intrigues me the most, and the committee on historical hipsterism only narrowly voted him down. Despite the fact that for a brief period in the early 2010s it seemed like hipster kids all over town dressed like 1970s tennis players in headbands and short shorts, nobody can say that John McEnroe would have been anything other than mainstream in his day, at least fashionwise.
Comments