Retro-extremists? What are we called?

[John in Covina]

I have written this elsewhere: a depression era theme demonstrated by the idea not to throw away usable stuff, make do, mend and wear it out. Someone buys disposable aluminun trays to bring over a lasagna or other food. Depression era mom's will wash those trays and make sure you have them before you leave, they do not see them as disposable. Something not seen quite as often these days.

 

[Viola]

I have never found money a big stumbling block to vintage. Stumbling block to individual items I really want, hoo boy yes definitely. I want all kinds of vintage things I can't have or don't have yet. But it's not a barricade to the lifestyle, and its not keeping me from slowly getting things I want or learning how to get at least looks I like.

I also have a probably excessive amount of vintage furniture, all from within the price point of $25.00 dollars or less. I'm going to have to hand a lot of it off this year because I can't afford to ship it, which makes me sad, but it was not hard to get.

 

[reetpleat]

I think I have a problem with the underpinning argument that it has to cost a lot of money. I think it certainly can, and I don't disrespect anybody who buys their way to it, but I do not think it has to.

I myself find it far more frugal to be vintage than modern? Buy used books instead of video games. Snuggle up under blankets instead of turning up the heat. Walk to work. Have a vegetable garden. Bake and cook instead of eating out. Buy vintage clothes or learn to sew. Buy used furniture instead of stuff from Ikea that lasts three years and dies and needs to be bought again.

I don't think being an atavist requires money; if anything it may just require not caring about people raising eyebrows at "how you can live that way."

I'm interested to see if I'm an outlier in this; do other people also think vintage equals spendy?

Yes, but being frugle, eating at home, sewing your own clothes, buying or finding used furniture, reading books, going for walks in the park and scuh are not the halmark of an ativist. They are the halmark of being old fashioned or living a simple life.

An atavist is more than that, aren't they? isn't thee something inherent in the concept that is about intentionally recreating the past? Yes, it doesn't have to cost much. As I said,I was just joking about it because the Baron mentioned consumerism.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I imagine that feeling of displacement. It's a matter of degree.


It's all about how one deals with that feeling of displacement I guess. For me it's keeping the (to me) good things from that time, ignoring the bad things about today to the extent possible, and getting on with living in the present.


It just doesn't dominate my day to day life.

Nicely said.

It is also about live and let live. The fact that I choose to live a particular lifestyle is entirely volitional. There are those who will like, dislike it and those who simply do not care. However, with whatever I choose I assume the risk inherent in that lifestyle.

 

[Viola]

Yes, but being frugle, eating at home, sewing your own clothes, buying or finding used furniture, reading books, going for walks in the park and scuh are not the halmark of an ativist. They are the halmark of being old fashioned or living a simple life.

An atavist is more than that, aren't they? isn't thee something inherent in the concept that is about intentionally recreating the past? Yes, it doesn't have to cost much. As I said,I was just joking about it because the Baron mentioned consumerism.

I wonder if I count then, sorry.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I wonder if I count then, sorry.

There is no hierarchy.....I belong because I say I belong.....

 

[reetpleat]

I can see that you are actually definitely in the game. You have the same feelings that I do just not quite as strongly---to the point of rejecting a whole lot more from day to day. perhaps it is because I was raised by parents who were older than most of my friend's parents. My father was nearly 40 when I was born and a veteran of Korea. He was my hero and a good part of who I am.
You may not live a specific vintage lifestyle but vintage is not limited to a lifestyle it is in the blood, manners, morals and the like. It is just us. [huh]

Firstly, I see no reason why an atavist can't be a wisecracking, incorrigable rude shelfish ne'er do well. Certainly that is a vintage archetype.

Having or using manners does not seem any particular halmark of the vintage atavist.

granted, since we get most of our conception from Hollywood movies, most tend to act in formalized, mannerly ways. But if your intent is to define an atavist as someone who lives their life with certain values and manners, you will not only include people who are not true vintage atavists, but will exclude others who are.

I vote that this characteristic be considered a secondary, only sometimes present one.

It is quite clear that you, JP, and some others, consider this to be an important part of your involvement in this community. That is great.

But it certainly isn't for me. As said once here before.

I'm just here for the suits and the music.

I do not think listening to a certain music or wearing a certain type of clothing has much to do with manners, or value of the way things used to be. I say a true ativist as we are talking here is much more defined by an appreciation of the artifacts, fashion, music and style of the past than the manners, attitudes, or general culture. Those things can be possessed by anyone and adopted by anyone. Only one who makes a real effort will listen to swing music wear the clothes, learn to partner dance, use a vintage telephone.

 

[reetpleat]

I think you're right on the button. When people ask me "how I can live that way," I say "Very well, thanks."

Now, I'd love to buy that '39 Plymouth I've always had my eye on, but I'm realistic enough to know I'll never be able to afford it. But I can drag a vintage bike home from the dump, restore it, and ride that every day -- and have the satisfaction of knowing I didn't have to pay "collector prices" for it.

Short answer to it all is, atavism isn't about what you own. It's about your entire worldview.

Not so sure. Would an ex punk rocker who creates a perfect vintage lifestyle down to the toothpaste, maybe even as a statement of anti modern culture, or just for the fun or punk rockness of it, but had progressive political views, and did not care at all about "values of the past" not be at rue atavist?

In SF, I and others I knew lived pretty near full time or full time vintage lifestyles including dressing at home, going out to see bands and dance many nights, driving around in old cars etc. But most of them did not talk much about "how great old values were, saving money, working hard, etc" They spent more time shopping thrift stores and drinking and dancing than they did working or saving money. In fact, if they had truly vintage values, they might have gotten married, had kids, and given up the whole thing in favor of focusing on working and raising their family (not that you can't do both) but they were essentially lifestylists as a hardcore hobby. Nothing more.

 

[reetpleat]

I wonder if I count then, sorry.

Not sure what you mean by count. I am sure your opinion is valued here. And I make no claim to be the decider of who is or isn't an ativist. I am just saying that an atavist may well be partly defined by the ownership and use of specific things of the era. Consumerist or not, it seems to be inherent to the term. Going for walks in the park is all well and good. but it does not an atavist make.

 

[Viola]

I guess I was conflating ownership of vintage things and vintage hobbies as well. If you like knitting, is that modern, because the sweaters are newly made, or is it vintage if you are home knitting sweaters in a vintage style instead of out at the Abercrombie and Fitch buying thirty dollar tee shirts? Both shirts are new but I tend to lump the first in more with vintage lifestyle.

I have a lot of truly vintage furniture but less vintage clothing, and mostly associate my interests with studying the period and living in a similar old-fashioned style.

And going back to the point that its about amassing stuff; depending on your interests its not all very expensive stuff. If you like '40s Buicks that's going to set you back pretty well compared with '40s dishware or '40s lamps.

 

[Geesie]

I guess I was conflating ownership of vintage things and vintage hobbies as well. If you like knitting, is that modern, because the sweaters are newly made, or is it vintage if you are home knitting sweaters in a vintage style instead of out at the Abercrombie and Fitch buying thirty dollar tee shirts? Both shirts are new but I tend to lump the first in more with vintage lifestyle.

And what if you use vintage items to knit modern style sweaters? [huh]

 

[MisterCairo]

So Senator Jack, what's the consensus on a term of art for us?

 

[Viola]

And what if you use vintage items to knit modern style sweaters? [huh]

Just don't be that person who uses vintage patterns to make modern purses, or, wherever you lurk, eventually Lady Day will find you and then there will be hell to pay!*


*I hate that woman too I would hold her down for Lady Day.

 

[HadleyH]

It takes more than using myriad vintage appliances and dressing to embrace an era. It is more about perspective, having the essence of a period course through your veins, an appreciation for that which has come before and the ability to be able to discern what was real and what was romanticized.

That's true too.

I dont dress vintage or use vintage appliances, etc ...but somehow I do feel that the 20s and 30s "run through my veins" so to speak ... but nobody would know it.... it's not in the outside...it's only inside my mind and heart. I know what I like and that's enough for me. I don't have to prove anything to anybody.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

That's true too.

I dont dress vintage or use vintage appliances, etc ...but somehow I do feel that the 20s and 30s "run through my veins" so to speak ... but nobody would know it.... it's not in the outside...it's only inside my mind and heart. I know what I like and that's enough for me. I don't have to prove anything to anybody.

Thank you someone who has the courage to speak her mind. Once again you have captured the spirit of why many of us come to The Fedora Lounge

I will tell you something else I do not have to "take my hat off" to blend into any crowd. The fact that I am in the "crowd" is enough....

 

[LizzieMaine]

Not so sure. Would an ex punk rocker who creates a perfect vintage lifestyle down to the toothpaste, maybe even as a statement of anti modern culture, or just for the fun or punk rockness of it, but had progressive political views, and did not care at all about "values of the past" not be at rue atavist?

Well, I don't think political views have anything to do with it. There were plenty of progressives in 1937, and some of them shed a lot more blood for the sake of their beliefs than any of the progressives you're likely to meet today. So I really don't think political views are relevant *at all* to who is or isn't an atavist. The idea that to be an atavist you have to embrace a particular political view is the bunk.

I'd think *the* key element of atavism as we've been discussing it here is a deep and consuming alienation from modern *culture,* to the point where your daily way of life reflects that. The only ex-punkers I know are the ones here on the Lounge, and I don't know how representative they are -- so I'll readily admit I don't know enough about that culture to say one way or another if any of them might actually be Atavists in ripped pants. But I *would* say that pursuing the vintage life simply as a punkish performance-art send-up would *not* be atavism as it's been defined in this thread. Atavism isn't ironic.

 

[SGT Rocket]

Does that mean there can be no room for the sideliners?

What does it say to those that are working on the fringe but haven't or can't achieve a total vintage lifestyle?

How do you get "certified" as to having vintage lifestyle?

Is there a heirarchy or set advancements for ratings such amatuer, novice, journeyman, master?

I don't really think there should be a litmus test. People should be able to self identify. I don't think it should be like the early 80's: "oh, he's just posing, he's not really *ska*."

It's like, I'm Jewish. I try to observe all the mitzvhot (commandments) I can. There are people in my shul (synagogue) who observe more than I do and people who observe less than I do. But we are all Jewish. I always try to observe as many as I can but sometimes time doesn't allow for it. Like, if the kids are really crazy in the morning, I do a very abbreviated morning prayers-- though I would love to do the full prayer service. That doesn't make me a bad Jew, that is just life. Plus, I'm sure that there are many commandments that I don't even know out that I could be observing. Does that make me a bad Jew? Nope. Should other Jews look down on my due to my ignorance? No, but I'm sure some do, but I'm not friends with them anyway.

The whole "I'm more Jew/Vintage than you" is sort of narcissistic. It's like being competitive with someone who doesn't even know they are in competition with you.

So, I don't think there should be any *exclusiveness*. Some people may be more observant to the lifestyle than others. That isn't a bad thing, it's just life. I'm in the National Guard, so I'm not going to work in OD Greens from the 1950's. I'm going to wear issued ACUs.

After reading this thread, with some people claiming, at least what I am interpreting their words as saying "I'm not going to hang out or I will look down on anyone who is not as "vintage" as me." Man, that makes me want to avoid any meet-ups or get-togethers for fear of being judged. I like hats and *old stuff* because it gives me pleasure not because I'm competing for the the coolest of the vintage-people.

Though I do think we need a self describing word. I would rather be a "___" than not... Whether we like it or not, what we wear speaks volumes about ourselves. Like when I see a Punk, or Kikker, or Stoner or Biker, or Priest, or Soldier, or Rabbi walking down the road, I know a little more about them by what they are wearing. This isn't a bad thing. We learn to categorize as kids to make since of the world: hot/cold, dark/light, mom/dad, etc... It's just the way it is. Lots of people say "don't put me into a box," or "don't stereotype." Well, it's happening and you do it to whether or not you realize it.

Sorry if I'm coming off a little piss and vinegar tonight, but I have stitches in my head and they are really hurting tonight. :rage:

Also, in all of my posts, forgive my spelling (I went to Texas public schools-- HISD).

 

[reetpleat]

Well, I don't think political views have anything to do with it. There were plenty of progressives in 1937, and some of them shed a lot more blood for the sake of their beliefs than any of the progressives you're likely to meet today. So I really don't think political views are relevant *at all* to who is or isn't an atavist. The idea that to be an atavist you have to embrace a particular political view is the bunk.

I'd think *the* key element of atavism as we've been discussing it here is a deep and consuming alienation from modern *culture,* to the point where your daily way of life reflects that. The only ex-punkers I know are the ones here on the Lounge, and I don't know how representative they are -- so I'll readily admit I don't know enough about that culture to say one way or another if any of them might actually be Atavists in ripped pants. But I *would* say that pursuing the vintage life simply as a punkish performance-art send-up would *not* be atavism as it's been defined in this thread. Atavism isn't ironic.

True, I say political, but I meant more about attitude, such as that in the past people worked hard had good values, didn't waste bla bla bla. I don't think that is necessarily a part of it. Obviously, it is the senators concept to define and characterize. But do you think there needs to be two words, one who lives a full lifestyle out of love (it doesn't have to be ironic) out of rejection of modern values, (again, doesn't have to be ironic) or out of a true feeling of alienation from modern culture. If you start narrowing it down that way, you may end up with a sub group so small it is meaningless to have a term for. If there is any hope for the term to catch on, best make it apply to anyone, for whatever reasons, lives their life fully, or as fully as possible, as if they wre living in the era.

I think there are a lot of 50s people who live pretty accurate period lifestyles who have a healthy element of kitch in their attitudes. It is almost inherent in the 50s bit.

For that matter, do you really think that a guy who lives a 70s or 80s lifestyle really feels that things were great then and seeks to revive the attitudes of the era because they are alienated from this vastly different culture of today? the senator already said he wanted to include them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

After reading this thread, with some people claiming, at least what I am interpreting their words as saying "I'm not going to hang out or I will look down on anyone who is not as "vintage" as me." Man, that makes me want to avoid any meet-ups or get-togethers for fear of being judged. I like hats and *old stuff* because it gives me pleasure not because I'm competing for the the coolest of the vintage-people.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, but both the Senator and I have stressed from the very beginning of the the thread that the whole concept isn't about who is or isn't "more vintage." Some people may be reading that into the thread, but they're missing the entire point of it if they are.

The reason the thread was started was because there was no suitable word to describe a particular type of "vintage living" *that is motivated for a particular set of reasons.* If all vintage types were motivated by the same reasons, we wouldn't need such a word to describe it. There are many different reasons, all of them equally valid. If those aren't *your* reasons, fine. But those of us who *are* motivated by that particular set of reasons would simply like to have a convenient shorthand way to describe it, and it honestly astounds me that it's become this big a deal. Did the rockabillies have to go thru all this when they named themselves?

 

[reetpleat]

I guess now that I think of it, I seem to be lobbying for the term or concept not to be strictly limited to attitude or outlook. Because, while I do not anymore, I once was close and actually contemplated going full atavist in lifestyle. yet, I never gave a second thought to the values, attitudes, or whatever of the era. I just loved the clothes, music, films, dancing, furniture, etc and wanted to surround myself with them to the point of it being a full on lifestyle done everyday fully. I would suggest that that would be pretty much a part of this concept.

back in the day, as you say, there were progressives, there were people that didn't work hard or want to work hard, there were liars and cheats, there were rude poorly dressed people. So, how is valuing hard work, repairing things, making things yourself, being frugle or anything like that vintage anyway?

People do that now, hippies did it in the 70s, and plenty of people didn't do that then.

I would suggest the only meaningful distinction that would need to be defined, is living a lifestyle surrounded by artifacts, clothing, music, activities such partner dancing, housing, movies, and maybe speech.

Attitude, values, etc still exist today, and did not always exist then, so they may be meaningless. The only true value all ativists possess is that they value the (fill in the blank) era. Besides that, what does the public know or care about your attitude. All they will know is how you live, dress, what you use, where you live, drive, etc. Why is not likely to be explained nor cared about much, so creating a word for those who have a certain attitude, outside of the visible spectrum, is pretty meaningless.