Cool Gone Cold
Old hipsters now need hip replacement.
Nov 9, 2009, Vol. 15, No. 08 • By ANN MARLOWE
The Birth (and Death) of the Cool
Reading Ted Gioia's dust-jacket credits ("Best-selling author of The History of Jazz and Delta Blues"), readers may think this book is about jazz or pop culture. It is--and Gioia has written an intellectually precise, lively, and imaginative account of "the cool" and its role in American life. But even Gioia may not realize that he has offered up a tangential illumination of the whole phenomenon of modernity:
Starting in the fifties and gaining momentum over the next two decades, average people wanted to lead their lives as though they were works of art, songs or movies or novels. At the same time, people now judged songs or movies or novels as lifestyle accessories, not as aesthetic products. In some strange way, this became the epitome of the cool--to externalize your life as though it were one more entertainment product.
This rehearses the argument of the whole book, including the "death of the cool," which he attributes to the eventual sickening commercialization of the concept. From now on, he argues, we are in for earnestness, authenticity, and an absence of irony.
Where did "the cool" come from? Gioia's answer is no surprise: from African Americans. Cool was first defined in print in 1947, in a book titled piquantly Jive and Slang of Students in Negro Colleges. It meant "neatly dressed," and a "cool papa" was a "nonchalant fellow."
Unsurprisingly, Gioia, the author of five books on the subject, leans heavily on jazz in explaining cool. Almost 40 pages are devoted to discussing the roles of Bix Beiderbecke, Lester Young, and Miles Davis in the construction of cool, and much of this is gloriously written criticism. A few representatively brilliant asides: Gioia looks at Method acting as a sort of stage jazz, and riffs on the fact that Bugs Bunny, Fred Flintstone, and the Pink Panther had jazz themes despite the fact that jazz record sales were minuscule.
The strength of this study is that Gioia's theorizing rests on specific examples drawn from his magisterial knowledge of jazz. That is also its weakness. Gioia may underestimate the degree to which film fed the aestheticization of everyday life, and starting long before the 1950s. Gioia would also have deepened his analysis by looking at 19th-century intellectual history. The ability to "externalize" one's view of one's life arose in the late 19th century. There is Nietzsche, who wrote about looking at art from the perspective of life in The Birth of Tragedy, and the aesthetes, decadents, and dandies of the fin de siecle.
Gioia might also have written more about when bohemia arose, and why, and why it seems increasingly fragile, though not so fragile as "the cool." He pays so much attention to jazz that he slights the role of bohemia, including the WASP bohemia of early 20th-century Greenwich Village, in forming "the cool."
Then there is the role of Jews, also soft-pedaled here. Gioia includes "blacks, gays, jazz musicians, street toughs, bohemians, and countercultural figures of all types" as role models for cool--but not Jews. This, too, would be investigated best by going back to the 19th century, where Jews first appeared as "cool" figures in novels (Daniel Deronda, Proust), politics (Benjamin Disraeli), and society. The aura of the demonic and outcast that clung to them would also be part of the aesthetic of cool.
But these are quibbles; Ted Gioia has not written a definitive work of intellectual history but an extended essay on a phenomenon that draws on his own field of expertise. And he has hit upon the one essential point: He writes that the cool "eventually boiled down to how one was perceived by others. Coolness, even more than beauty, is inevitably in the eye of the beholder."
This is a remarkable insight into all of modernity, not just "the cool," and I would go further and say that this emphasis on the eye of the beholder was a necessary precondition for cool. Cool was unthinkable until there was a fashion for what Nietzsche called perspectival thinking in the Will to Power.
Loosely, this means regarding reality as lying mainly in the eye of the beholder rather than being fixed, immutable, and objectively given. Once this makes sense, then it also makes sense to dress, live, and act "as if" you were whatever you want to be. In 1400 it made no sense to dress as a peasant if you were a noble, or vice versa, because reality most definitely did not lie in the eye of the beholder. It was part of a permanent social order established by God.