HIPSTERPHOBIA EXPLAINED VIA NEW ECONOMIC MODELS!
-
Artist:
-
Album:
-
Track:
If you read any of the garbage I write on this page or the other page I write on, you've probably seen me speculating on the reasons for the increasingly disproportionate hate tossed on the phantom "hipsters" in the public discourse over the past ~2 years. Today I got a new theory.The editor of the Wired magazine has written a book describing an economic model that seems to imply that in the future, "hipsters"- ie, people interested mainly in niche products as opposed to the most popular products available- might be more important to the economy than squares who are obediently satisfied with the "hits." Scope that link and it'll become real clear, I'm not the best at paraphrasing academic hoohah like this- but basically, the "lifeboat economics" of a world where things are sold mainly on physical shelves might be superceded by a market where it is no longer necessary for industries to concentrate on "the hits."
There's few things in this world more stubborn than a millionaire, and there seems to be very few exceptions to the rule that millionaires would prefer to bend the truth or step on somebody else's toes rather than have to amass a fortune from scratch for the second time (or for the first time, in the case of quite a large number of millionaires born into their wealth.) There are few among those of us of more modest means who would dispute the fact that technology has caused irreversible changes to our society in the last decade, but it would appear that the whinging Ghost Dog-gangsters at the top of the entertainment industry would like to believe that legislation and intimidation might be adequate to prevent the consumers who have fattened the major labels'/studios' pockets for the last umpteen years from utilizing new technology to explore artistic developments across "the long tail" when the superhits in "the head" leave us feeling unfulfilled. Why am I babbling like this when I've already admitted that I'm a total n00b at economics? Well, I'm trying to steer you towards the first thing I thought after reading up about The Long Tail today, which is that all this irrational hipsterphobia makes a LOT more sense when I look at that graph & think of the shithearted dinosaurs behind the largest companies in the entertainment industry, and the pitstains spreading on their expensive suits as they sit in their luxurious offices contemplating their own full-colour graphs which depict plummeting stock prices. Why is there so much hipsterphobia, why would anybody willingly align themselves with the mainstream in a time when the art produced by the major labels and big studios is such self-evidently irrelevant garbage? The same reason there is any irrational social phobia: a sorry attempt by those of influence to use social pressure to force people into resisting an irresistable change. (see: homophobia) Irrational contempt and disgust with straw-people for whom "top 40 radio isn't good enough" must come from the top, from big media's ability to present us with a pretty scapegoat for our frustration and for the less reflective among us to champion that goat's persecution as a sublimation of their real frustrations (which undoubtedly involve either their own lack of wealth or the depressing shit they have done in order to get a meager fraction of it.) I submit that "big media" has set it up as such, in the classic "Red Spy/Blue Spy" mold: there are "regular people," who are a mostly humble kind of folk of every size, shape and color. They have all different interests and occupations- almost anybody can be "regular," and in fact everybody IS regular unless/until they make the conscious choice to deviate. Now, a curiously specific aspect of "regular people" is that they are fully satisfied with the most popular movies and music available. They see no deficiency in the focus-grouped, consciously-pandering products created by the richest creators in our society. Despite this universal agreement among them- that the same small percentage of new movies and albums (which happen to have the most money spent on their marketing & promotion) are "the best" of all available albums and movies- this is still (according to the hipsterphobic myth) the most diverse group of people in society. Directly opposed to them are, of course, the hipsters. It's easy to understand who the hipsters are if you look at a picture of the Long Tail-- they're the folk who disregard "the head" and find satisfation in a niche or niches existing along the tail. Here's where the myth completely breaks with common sense, though: somehow, the "hipsters," whose area of interest is much wider and broader than the narrow selection of art found in "the head" are a LESS diverse group than "regular people." The hipsterphobic assert-- either directly or through implication---- that hipsters are shallow, fashion-conscious people who like what they like in order to be different, and that this makes them all basically the same, suitable for whipping with witty generalizations and the like. It seems like everytime you encounter irrational hate like this you find a similar inversion-- squares, self-conscious about their conformist behavior in a time when it is easy to observe how such conformity enables the greediest men among us to enact their cruel will on their brothers and sisters, are given the opportunity to invert their anxieties and cast these phantom hipsters as the true jokers of our culture. "Those people who reject this specific small percentage of art, those faggots are all the same, fuck them!"
Basically I think we should remodel the Statue of Liberty to have George Orwell's face, so that we can look at it and laugh and remember not to be so confused and easily manipulated when somebody tells us the opposite of what a few minutes of thought would suggest is the truth.
There's few things in this world more stubborn than a millionaire, and there seems to be very few exceptions to the rule that millionaires would prefer to bend the truth or step on somebody else's toes rather than have to amass a fortune from scratch for the second time (or for the first time, in the case of quite a large number of millionaires born into their wealth.) There are few among those of us of more modest means who would dispute the fact that technology has caused irreversible changes to our society in the last decade, but it would appear that the whinging Ghost Dog-gangsters at the top of the entertainment industry would like to believe that legislation and intimidation might be adequate to prevent the consumers who have fattened the major labels'/studios' pockets for the last umpteen years from utilizing new technology to explore artistic developments across "the long tail" when the superhits in "the head" leave us feeling unfulfilled. Why am I babbling like this when I've already admitted that I'm a total n00b at economics? Well, I'm trying to steer you towards the first thing I thought after reading up about The Long Tail today, which is that all this irrational hipsterphobia makes a LOT more sense when I look at that graph & think of the shithearted dinosaurs behind the largest companies in the entertainment industry, and the pitstains spreading on their expensive suits as they sit in their luxurious offices contemplating their own full-colour graphs which depict plummeting stock prices. Why is there so much hipsterphobia, why would anybody willingly align themselves with the mainstream in a time when the art produced by the major labels and big studios is such self-evidently irrelevant garbage? The same reason there is any irrational social phobia: a sorry attempt by those of influence to use social pressure to force people into resisting an irresistable change. (see: homophobia) Irrational contempt and disgust with straw-people for whom "top 40 radio isn't good enough" must come from the top, from big media's ability to present us with a pretty scapegoat for our frustration and for the less reflective among us to champion that goat's persecution as a sublimation of their real frustrations (which undoubtedly involve either their own lack of wealth or the depressing shit they have done in order to get a meager fraction of it.) I submit that "big media" has set it up as such, in the classic "Red Spy/Blue Spy" mold: there are "regular people," who are a mostly humble kind of folk of every size, shape and color. They have all different interests and occupations- almost anybody can be "regular," and in fact everybody IS regular unless/until they make the conscious choice to deviate. Now, a curiously specific aspect of "regular people" is that they are fully satisfied with the most popular movies and music available. They see no deficiency in the focus-grouped, consciously-pandering products created by the richest creators in our society. Despite this universal agreement among them- that the same small percentage of new movies and albums (which happen to have the most money spent on their marketing & promotion) are "the best" of all available albums and movies- this is still (according to the hipsterphobic myth) the most diverse group of people in society. Directly opposed to them are, of course, the hipsters. It's easy to understand who the hipsters are if you look at a picture of the Long Tail-- they're the folk who disregard "the head" and find satisfation in a niche or niches existing along the tail. Here's where the myth completely breaks with common sense, though: somehow, the "hipsters," whose area of interest is much wider and broader than the narrow selection of art found in "the head" are a LESS diverse group than "regular people." The hipsterphobic assert-- either directly or through implication---- that hipsters are shallow, fashion-conscious people who like what they like in order to be different, and that this makes them all basically the same, suitable for whipping with witty generalizations and the like. It seems like everytime you encounter irrational hate like this you find a similar inversion-- squares, self-conscious about their conformist behavior in a time when it is easy to observe how such conformity enables the greediest men among us to enact their cruel will on their brothers and sisters, are given the opportunity to invert their anxieties and cast these phantom hipsters as the true jokers of our culture. "Those people who reject this specific small percentage of art, those faggots are all the same, fuck them!"Basically I think we should remodel the Statue of Liberty to have George Orwell's face, so that we can look at it and laugh and remember not to be so confused and easily manipulated when somebody tells us the opposite of what a few minutes of thought would suggest is the truth.
Comments (4)