Post #38142 by aquarj on Mon, Jun 9, 2003 3:42 PM

Declaring that Shag stuff is "officially un-cool" based on a hangup about mainstream accessibility is pretty hard to take seriously. But amazingly this seems to be a serious comment, as if "cool" is literally defined by whether or not showing something off elicits approval from some select group of hipsters, and elicits dumbfounded stares from everyone else. I've heard that there are people who think like this, just never seen one in action!

I would comment that Shag's style is pop art, so it's no surprise that it appeals to an ever-increasing audience. Even though basic inertia still limits his exposure to a very small percentage of the population, there's no question that it's broadening. If that changes the opinion of anyone who "knew him when", based on some subjective notion of "cool", that's fine because everyone's gotta have their own reasons. But I'd argue that it never was cool to seek validation by name-dropping Shag (or any artist), whether it was 4 years ago or today.

Incidentally, for all the talk of the riches and wealth that Shag is supposedly reaping, I wonder what the threshold is where people start getting resentful like this. Do you think he makes more money from his art and merch, than an arbitrary possible selection from among his neighbors? A lawyer? A doctor? Being in so-cal, maybe someone in the entertainment business? Is it any of our business to speculate or pass judgment on how much is too much? Is it more acceptable to be like Bob and Leroy at OA? In other words, you can make a living, but if you get too popular we'll declare you un-cool too!

-Randy