Charli XCX ignited a fierce debate with a recent essay, “The Death of Cool.” The piece, published on her Substack, has sharply divided fans – some see raw honesty, others dismiss it as self-absorbed.
The artist, known for defining a cultural moment with her vibrant “Brat” era in 2024, is now grappling with a fundamental question: can something truly cool survive when it’s embraced by the mainstream?
Charli’s essay centers on the rapid explosion of “Brat,” and how its original message became diluted as it permeated popular culture, even appearing in a US presidential campaign. She wondered if the very act of widespread adoption stripped it of its initial allure.
Despite acknowledging a discomfort with dismissing something simply for its popularity, Charli confessed her relentless pursuit of “coolness” stems from a deep-seated fear of being perceived as boring. She equates it to a constant need to be fascinating, a perpetual “365 party girl.”
The need to create something bold and unique with “Brat” arose from a concert experience that left her feeling utterly unmoved. The performance, while technically proficient, lacked any spark, any genuine feeling – it was, in her words, “not cool.”
Charli argues that attempting to appeal to everyone is a fatal flaw. The moment art strives for universal acceptance, it loses its edge, its distinctiveness, and ultimately, its coolness. It becomes broad, passé, and ultimately, uninteresting.
She admitted that as “Brat” became increasingly commercialized, its representations became distorted and detached from her original vision. These diluted versions, she felt, were mistaken for authenticity, leading to a sense of stagnation.
The essay sparked criticism, with some finding it overly self-referential and lacking nuance. One commenter described it as “vapid” and “conceited,” arguing it lacked broader perspective.
The very concept of “cool” has a rich history, originating in the 1940s within Black jazz culture. It initially signified a resistance to oppression, a way to inspire social change through art and self-expression.
Charli’s insistence on the importance of “coolness” – a relentless pursuit of image – struck some as exhausting. Others found value in her honesty, recognizing it as a reflection of the insecurities inherent in being an “IT girl.”
Ultimately, Charli’s essay isn’t a definitive cultural analysis, but a glimpse into the mind of a pop star wrestling with complex ideas. It raises questions about authenticity, commercialism, and the subjective nature of art.
The meaning of “cool” has evolved dramatically since its origins, becoming increasingly subjective. Art, once released into the world, takes on a life of its own, resonating differently with each individual.
A brand’s appropriation of an artistic movement doesn’t diminish the original experience for those who connected with it authentically. The true value lies in the personal connection, not the marketing campaign.
Charli’s preoccupation with public perception, while understandable, may be overshadowing the intrinsic value of her work. But her willingness to grapple with these questions is, in itself, a valuable act of vulnerability.
Many defended her post as a genuine stream of consciousness, not a scholarly treatise. It’s a unique and honest glimpse into her world, and that alone makes it worth sharing.
Charli’s essay touches on profound questions: can art retain its integrity when commercialized? Can something be both popular and pure? While she doesn’t offer easy answers, she ignites a crucial conversation.
Perhaps the most important takeaway is that we all, to some extent, care about how we are perceived. Charli simply embodies this universal human desire on a much larger scale.
