This article is pretty much crap, IMO. While the author makes good points about millenials being self-deprecating and irreverent, she also mistakes that for disengagement. Brooklyn, Detroit, Portland, and other "hipstery" areas are actually pretty cool places where people do pretty cool things. She mistakes the rejection of traditional ideals for the rejection of ideals completely, which was more grunge-90s style (to make an REM reference, since we were on that topic the other day, "...withdrawl in disgust is not the same as apathy"). I know a lot of hipster-types who have opened businesses, worked for politicians, studied serious academic subjects, created brilliant art, etc. These aren't the acts of an apathetic group; they are the acts of a group who rejects modern suburbia, and wants to create a better world in their own vision. How can the DIY movement, for example, be considered devoid of value and culture? Every group has annoying poseurs, who partake only for superficial reasons (think hippies who were in it for the LSD, or in today's terms, teenie boppers flocking to Urban Outfitters), but I think on the whole the young generation has a lot to offer, so long as they can do it in their own way. The over irony is a reaction to main stream values; that is what is being rejected. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Look at your clothes. What parts of your wardrobe could be described as costume-like, derivative or reminiscent of some specific style archetype (the secretary, the hobo, the flapper, yourself as a child)? In other words, do your clothes refer to something else or only to themselves?

How to even respond to this? Is this a cry for conformity? Everyone's clothes are a costume. I typically wear plain t-shirts and jeans. Its an anti-costume, but it still says something. To suggest there's a way one can dress that is void of cultural signals is wrong, plain and simple.