rigorousintuition.ca

I'm no longer young, but I am sure I could resort to posting photos of the young who could not be placed in earlier epochs. I'd consider that a violation of their privacy and maybe even exploitative.

As a male my "style" options are somewhat limited, but I'm a pretty stylish guy. Male fashion is primarily unchanged for almost 150 years, but I have more than a few pieces in my closet that never would have existed a decade ago. I've recently become a big fan of Staple brand and the detailing there is definitely contemporary. The construction of my Uniqlo stuff is well beyond clothes that I used to own. My girlfriend is an artist, McQueen fan, runs a salon, and she's unbelievably stylish. We both sometimes "dress 90's" as a joke, but she managed to avoid nostalgic Weird New America, freak folk, dayglo, twee, or any other broad throwback trend. I think she and many of our female friends do a good job building their own thing. Unfortunately I find it materialistic, but there is a certain amount of artistry, self-determination and progressivism there and I get that. With the salon, her goal is to help everyone look their best, which in turn helps them feel their best, and thereby helps society. That's neither here nor there as far as this post is concerned, I'm just providing a basic defense pursuant of being preoccupied with something as unimportant as design and personal style.

I do agree with a lot of the points discussed here; visual culture has slowed, many contemporary trends ride on waves of (false or perceived) nostalgia, there is less obvious cultural invention, and middle America is a dominating cultural force that overpowers the advances of countercultures. However, the photo above cited as being "not out of touch" is, to me, pretty dated-looking. The premise that looking into the past and determining that there are factions of contemporary society that it could fit into is indicative of little more than the power of the Internet and ease of referencing history. A more difficult idea would be looking at an avant garde young person in 2013 and trying to wring ones hands to fit them into 1993 or even 2003. There are many cases in which this is just absolutely not possible.

One of the greatest parts of being a creative professional in 2013 is being able to very easily learn from all of collective human history and divergent cultures, and to draw inspiration from them, build upon their successes and failures, and to apply the newest techniques, technologies, forms and aesthetics to them, all thanks to the Internet. The democracy of communication and information explains both: why some see that socially observable time has stopped; and why others see that there is just as much, if not more, that is new today than ever before.

82_28 wrote:

Burnt Hill wrote:

82_28 wrote:Look at these photos of Seattle's quake of 2001 that the Seattle PI just put up that happened this week 12 years ago. Besides photos of people using payphones there are no photos of "can you believe we used to wear shit like that?"



http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ ... to-4250300

Socially observable time stopped around 2001. Perhaps there could be a better term for it. But it stands in my eyes.

Carhartts and Jeans? Been that way since the 1800s, no need for it to change now! The greater indicator of social change is the demise of the payphone, but thats 'besides' the point?

Dude, you're exactly right! Actually you're not. You cannot look at photos and recognize the era it was in any longer, which is my point. And thanks for the dig on the "besides". I write like I talk mang when in a forum. That's besides-the point when vocalized sounds like exactly what I pattered out. You're right and you're awesome. Sweet. So go find yourself a payphone. Your "thats" needed an apostrophe BTW, chief.

? It wasnt a "dig" on the "besides"- i was quoting you in order to bring attention to what I feel is central to-and I was hoping you'd expand on why you think its "besides"- the point. I never mean to suggest I am with the grammar police- I would have to surrender my badge.And you can look at the picture and recognize the era it was from, the payphones make that fairly obvious, which brings me back to why you want me to ignore that aspect? And while at times I may be awesome and sweet, I am neither a dude nor (or?, I dont know! Is either/or, neither/nor true?) a chief.

I think our view of this subject is warped by our proximity to it. Our perspective will certainly change when we look back, say forty years from now. We may very well say the earlyTwothousands were a time of great socially observable change.

Burnt Hill wrote:I think our view of this subject is warped by our proximity to it. Our perspective will certainly change when we look back, say forty years from now. We may very well say the earlyTwothousands were a time of great socially observable change.

As evidenced by the photo above!

Why are we still going around in circles here?

Socially observable time has not stopped. Changes and upheavals may be as frequent or even more frequent than ever, but they come on top of countless prior changes in an always fast-moving environment. The sheer accumulation of these changes, and the permanent presence (through ease of reproduction) of all prior styles, and the constant multiplication of media messages all combine to create the perception that socially observable time has slowed down, or that we are in a seamless endless now that extends back into about the 1960s (I don't think coincidentally the point at which most film went color). This is what 82's trying to describe, I think, and also what Luther would admit, I believe, even if he's got a refined Queer Eye (in a Straight Guy) for spotting - and sporting - all the latest twists of the million-mile snake of fashion. (I do not recognize any of those brands you mention and wear castoffs and random finds, rotating through the same set of increasingly ragged clothes about once a week, perforce. I feel like Joe Sacco once put it, lamenting his own fashion loserdom: "Same underwear as in the Reagan Administration." I think until a few years ago this was literally true, in my case. Won't you help to me a makeover? I miss sex.)

I explained all this back here, better:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=33770&start=15#p440370

Accept my apologies, Burnt Hill. I was coming off two long shifts in "bartender mode" when I wrote that. No harm meant, chief.



Also taken in downtown Seattle, but you can guess the date or era, can you not? Just by style and fashion and colors. . .

Edit: Doesn't mean I'm a dick bartender either, just you have to jump to conclusions in intent sometimes and you do it all the time and I spent the last 24 hours doing so and you get used to using a certain tone. I did it to you and again, I apologize. I've always digged you.

^^^ I'm calling 1977 on that one.

It's kind of impossible to block out the clues that aren't fashion related, but I'm goin' earlier. More like '72.

also,

jack wrote:Socially observable time has not stopped.

fyi, the Magic Carpet free ride transit zone was started in 1973

http://seattlest.com/2008/11/14/a_magic_carpet_ride.php
it was renamed "ride free area" - possibly as early as 75

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/

I love the punk lolita flatform creepers I got for my birthday.

82_28 wrote:Accept my apologies, Burnt Hill. I was coming off two long shifts in "bartender mode" when I wrote that. No harm meant, chief.



Also taken in downtown Seattle, but you can guess the date or era, can you not? Just by style and fashion and colors. . .

Edit: Doesn't mean I'm a dick bartender either, just you have to jump to conclusions in intent sometimes and you do it all the time and I spent the last 24 hours doing so and you get used to using a certain tone. I did it to you and again, I apologize. I've always digged you.

Thanks 82_28. Those 12 hr shifts destroy me too. Now this picture- either its been posted here recently or I am having a gigantic deja vu? And suddenly I dont mind being called chief, , considering I am a member of the Seneca Nation..

Yeah, Burnt Hill, I put it I believe in the "Old Phone Numbers" thread as to having called those numbers and them being dead lines.

Not enough cars visible but the small one tells me it could be as early as guessed so far or as late as the early 1980s. 1985 would not surprise me. The outfits and car models only tell you earliest time, not latest. Especially not the outfits, you still see people dressed like that. Which to me is sort of of the point. Changes keep coming but with all past eras also present and constant retros and an increasingly unified media-perceptual system where everyone knows the same bullshit at the same time, it has acquired the feel of one continuous now.

is this about significant change or about fashion.
When the steam, and soon after, internal combustion engines came into being, for the first time ever that we know of, ordinary people got to leave home. Before that, lives were lived in one spot and one small community. Not much has changed since then when you look at the big picture.We are still mobile, and not much will until the collapse, I suppose...