I grant that "coolness" is tricky to define, but (if you're not restricting the domain of discourse to a particular group or subculture), I think it has to include either popularity or "outsider-ness". i.e., you can be cool either by being popular or by being controversial enough to get everyone talking about you, even in a negative way.
I don't think South Park meets either of these criteria anymore. It's not a pop culture locus like it used to be, and even their controversial episodes are ignored. Part of this isn't their fault- it's probably the continued fractalization of culture where we have ever-fewer shared experiences- but I also think it's hard to keep anything fresh for 20 years, especially something trying to be "edgy".
Note that that doesn't make it "bad", and it doesn't mean you can't still like it. But I think "coolness" can only be defined in terms of broad opinion.
(Genuinely curious) in what sense do you mean that it’s considered cool? I don’t think most of these people are treated with admiration and respect in popular culture in the way normally associated with the word “cool”.
Right--being cool is being different from people outside of your particular clique. It's a group of people all being different in the same ways. Goths, punks, jocks, etc.
To me, it's pretty obvious "cool" can only be defined descriptively, not prescriptively — i.e. "cool" is whatever makes idiot teenagers intuitively, instinctually impressed with you. By definition, you can't tell idiot teenagers what to think — in that, once you successfully do that, they're not idiot teenagers any more, and so are no longer the arbiters of "what's cool."
> *For the purpose of this writing, I’m defining “cool” as
> those who don’t conform, who don’t always fit in nor do
> they try to, and who follow their own path; and “uncool”
> as those who dress, act, and have the same tastes as the
> masses and are vulnerable to corporate influences.
This is total bollocks. "Cool" is not, and has never been, about not fitting in, or following your own path. It's about following the same path as everyone else, but being on the outside edge of the herd - just ahead of everyone else it best, but just the right distance behind works too. Best of all is to be just ahead of a small herd that is itself just ahead of the mainstream.
David Bowie was cool. Daniel Johnston was just an oddball.
There are dozens if not hundreds of people who frequent HN who have never taken an interest in conforming, and who follow their own noses. I'm one of them, and no-one has EVER considered me to be "cool".
While that's certainly an aspect, "cool" people can be identified by others even in the in-group. Usually it's related to them having genuine authenticity vs a "poser" who is distinctly uncool.
No one said that a counterculture has to be 'cool'. Some can be backward and bigoted, but stand in opposition to popular beliefs, and are counterculture none the less.
It's not about "cool" in terms of having the right sneakers or knowing the best band on the cusp of fame that only a couple hundred people listen to ("I listened to them before they were big, man ..."). That's hipster cool, teenager cool, and it's ephemeral and ultimately has almost nothing real at stake.
Instead, it's "cool" in terms of "cool under fire" - having self-assurance and confidence to know whatever happens, no matter what that is, I'll handle it. Or I'll handle the consequences of not handling it.
That latter kind of cool is what you need to lead men into combat, win an Olympic medal, or start a meaningful and profitable company. It's coolness dedicated to a mission, a purpose.
I suppose I just think that not everybody needs, wants or cares about cool. I agree that often the average person will follow the tastemakers, but if you can't keep the tastemakers there, or it's just too out there for the average person (like crazy clothing trends, for instance), you limit yourself to just the fringe.
We may have to agree to disagree :-) It'll be interesting to follow it, though, right?
I don't think South Park meets either of these criteria anymore. It's not a pop culture locus like it used to be, and even their controversial episodes are ignored. Part of this isn't their fault- it's probably the continued fractalization of culture where we have ever-fewer shared experiences- but I also think it's hard to keep anything fresh for 20 years, especially something trying to be "edgy".
Note that that doesn't make it "bad", and it doesn't mean you can't still like it. But I think "coolness" can only be defined in terms of broad opinion.
reply