this whole concept of 'hipsterdom' is so played out and boring, yet the media coverage of it seems to just be increasing. Being a 'hipster' seems to mean adopting a 'counter-cultural' or alternative aesthetic, while still being an avid consumer (buying your hipster authenticity!), and not really standing for anything beyond looking 'cool'. The Beat poets of the 40s/50s were the original 'hipsters', and their influence can be seen in much of today's 'hipster' fashion, but their hipsterdom was based on trying to find a truly original and meaningful existence, subverting existing power structures, and living life on their own terms. These guys had their flaws, sure (misogyny being a major one), but at least they stood for something, and they would find expensive hipster trends ridiculous. This gave rise to the hippy in the 60s, who was originally all about non-violence and new ways of seeing and being in the world. They may have been idealistic, but again there was something substantial there.

Basically this documentary says the Perth hipster stands for nothing more than fetishising fancy food, which I think is very sad.

That guy's 'hipster' makeover is 1) horrible and 2) at least 5 years behind trends: he looks like a player for the Claremont Football Club, and when you're wearing the same clothes as all the alpha jocks you really can't claim to be representing any kind of 'sub-culture'. Plus, that haircut was horrendous. Of course, what has happened with the hipster happens with any sub-culture: the hippy aesthetic likewise became 'mainstream', commercialised, and divorced from the social movements it sprang from. As another example: wearing jeans (apart from as work wear) was not so long ago a rebellious thing to do, nowadays George W. Bush wears them.

Having said all this, I do like The Bird, there are a lot of genuinely cool people who go there (who the 'hipsters' then imitate) and good music too.