Cosmology of Cool

It's always an interesting fact to consider that despite our culture's obesssion with certain ideas or concepts, our language in many cases possesses only a rough, rudimentary delineation of the subtleties of that particular idea.

In particular, I'm thinking about the idea of "cool." Despite the fetishization of celebrity, media, and fashion (a la Project Runway), the linguistic impact of that concept has never seems to stray far from synomyms. ("hot," "awesome," "sweet," "phat," "tight," "clutch," "deck"). What we need is a good cosmology of cool to better formulate and narrow discussion so as to separate out different "species." Theoretically, you should be able to generate a whole physics of "cool" from postulating different bodies. The definitions are key.

To that end, Clancy and I have developed a framework based around two dimensions -- externalized/internalized, and serious/kitsch. With these, we can create four categories that create a foundation for talking about cool. These are --

Hardcore (Externalized/Serious) -- Ex: The Clash, heyday Jimmy Page

Dylan-Core (Internalized/Serious) -- Ex: Bob Dylan, William S. Burroughs, Rufus Wainwright

Fab-Core (Externalized/Kitsch) -- Ex: Rupaul

Warhol-Core (Internalized/Kitsch) -- Ex: Andy Warhol, Colin Melloy (of the decemberists)

More on this later...