Retro-extremists? What are we called?

[The Lonely Navigator]

LizzieMaine: It's like reading the National Geographic -- I can read about fascinating cultures in obscure parts of the world, and appreciate that they have meaning to others. But I don't feel any need to actually participate in those cultures, because to do so wouldn't be true to who I actually am.

That's how I feel about it with all I'm involved in - had to put the underline for emphasis on that part. People may think I'm weird but oh well...I can't waste my time worrying about that. [huh]

 

[Bustercat]

Remind me again why it is so important to have what is essentially a 'blanket term' for people into vintage?

I'd rather not have a label attached to me, being pigeonholed into one specific term. That's one of the reasons I am into vintage. It is individual to everyone.

I have friends who dance swing/shag/charleston/balboa/jive and don't wear the clothes or have anything vintage. I also have friends who dance and do collect/wear vintage. I also have friends who don't dance but collect and wear vintage, and lastly, I have friends who don't fall into either category but sell vintage furniture for a living.

This whole idea of being a 'clockstopper', 'retroactive' or any other term is honestly silly and 100% nerdy. I find it strange that it's okay for people who are into vintage to put a restricting label on themselves, but if some Joe Q. Public placed a label on you, you would most likely be offended inside.

For someone who doesn't like labels, you're quick to call people "nerds" who are simply toying with the idea of finding a fun term to describe what they have in common. And you've certainly written a lot of words defending your position on a topic by rights you really shouldn't care about. If you don't want a self-defined category, why should you care if some others do?

 

[Undertow]

For someone who doesn't like labels, you're quick to call people "nerds" who are simply toying with the idea of finding a fun term to describe what they have in common. And you've certainly written a lot of words defending your position on a topic by rights you really shouldn't care about. If you don't want a self-defined category, why should you care if some others do?

And to add to your point...

Unless you're specifically singled out in being labeled one way or another, why give it a second thought when others try to determine how to label themselves?

If someone says they are "Ivy League", I guess I'm not interested one way or the other. But if someone had the nerve to tell me I was a great example of "yuppie" or what have you, I would have an issue with that because it then becomes my business. [huh]

And as Lizzie has pointed out, I believe the original intention of this dead-horse thread was to define a sub-sub culture (or sub-sub-subculture?) for one's own peace of mind. Unfortunately, it appears the thread has degenerated into conjecture, uncertainty and - evidently - resentment.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Does anyone even read the first 20 posts of this thread any more? They should. Then they might get it. It's mostly the back and forth between Jack and Lizzie you want to focus on; they're both dealing with the same culturo-temporal issue.

bk

 

[Undertow]

Does anyone even read the first 20 posts of this thread any more? They should. Then they might get it. It's mostly the back and forth between Jack and Lizzie you want to focus on; they're both dealing with the same culturo-temporal issue.

bk

Exactly. In fact, Jack's first post was quite descriptive of this. I don't know how everyone else does it, but I typically read the first three pages just to get caught up on what's going on before I post. [huh]

 

[vitanola]

Pardon me for jumping in, but I notice that the carpers on this thread seem to be those who chose a less-than-totally-immersive experience. Some of their posts carry more than a note of defensiveness. Why, one might ask? Assuming, of course that we're not reading too much into what really should be light-hearted banter.

It really appears to me that some are ignoring the excellent dialogue betwixt Miss Lizzie and The Senator because it does not exactly address their own concerns.

 

[LizzieMaine]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/soundingoff_0409.htm

An extract --

" You don’t have to accept anything you don’t like. For example, I tend not to stray this side of 1950 when it comes to books. I’ve found that I don’t like modern novels as much as older ones, so I don’t read them. Why on earth should I? And as there are far more good novels from before 1950 than I will ever be able to read in my lifetime, I will never need to read another modern one if I don’t feel like it.

"There’s no reason to lazily accept third-rate recycled bosh because third-rate recycled bosh is readily available. Remember that you don’t have to settle for anything that doesn’t excite or engage you. Why should you when there are an almost limitless number of alternatives within reach?"

He doesn't have a specific word for what he feels, but he pretty much sums up a lot of what should go into the Manifesto....

 

[Undertow]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/soundingoff_0409.htm

An extract --

" You don’t have to accept anything you don’t like. For example, I tend not to stray this side of 1950 when it comes to books. I’ve found that I don’t like modern novels as much as older ones, so I don’t read them. Why on earth should I? And as there are far more good novels from before 1950 than I will ever be able to read in my lifetime, I will never need to read another modern one if I don’t feel like it.

"There’s no reason to lazily accept third-rate recycled bosh because third-rate recycled bosh is readily available. Remember that you don’t have to settle for anything that doesn’t excite or engage you. Why should you when there are an almost limitless number of alternatives within reach?"

He doesn't have a specific word for what he feels, but he pretty much sums up a lot of what should go into the Manifesto....

That's a cool excerpt, Lizzie. That pretty much sums up how I describe my reading habits, too!

 

[reetpleat]

But I would suggest that it is not that productive to put much effort into a word defining maybe a couple of thousand people around the world. How could one ever hope to get it to catch on when most of the world could not care less, or lack of any relevance to their lives.

On the other hand, a term that encompasses those who choose to live a significant part of their lifestyle in the past, seems more important. What I mean is, a term for a guy who likes to wear a vintage hat, not very important. But a term for the people who like to wear vintage on a fairly regular basis, go to rockabilly swing, car and other type shows, weekenders, etc, combined maybe with those who like to dress up in their victorian finery, sip absense and go to Victorian ballroom dance weekends etc, throw in the military reenectors, especially those who like to go hardcore and spend a week or two sleeping in the mud, well, now you have a cultural phenomenom.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, or steal the thunder of those who are hardcore, every day lifestylists. They can certainly have their threads to discuss it, they can certainly have their own term, but it seems rather insignificant compared to a term that encompasses a fairly broad swath of people who are notable in their affinity for, and partial at least, rejection of modern music, culture, movies, dancing, or whatever.

For that matter, to the non member of any group, they will never know if someone is a full on lifestyle person, or maybe just dressed up that day. so the public will be applying a word to everyone, hardcore or not equally. So if you want to control what you are called, probably best to include anyone you may be associated with.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of this forum, do you think, actually dresses in full, mostly period correct clothing, and seeks out the company of others who dod the same on any regualr basis?

And, how many members actually are full on lifestyle people? And How many exist in the world?

Could it be there are many people out there who are so hardcore they refuse to get on line about it?

Also, are there any 18th or 17th or earlier full time lifestyle people out there. Is there some guy living in a mud hut on the moors of Ireland wearing rough wool and illuminating velum manuscripts at this very moment?

 

[FountainPenGirl]

I just came in part way through here and didn't read the entire thread. Will have to go back and do that. The previous post inspires thought. I'm not sure if there needs to be a deffinite deffinition of all this vintage stuff. What I have come up with to describe myself is " A truly vintage person". It would be hard to find much in my life that's not vintage of some sort. Even my work. It's interesting the different perspectives we have in the FL. There are vintagers that came from the current world and discovered something in the past that they were missing in the present. That opened the door to many new interests for them. Myself I'm just old enough to have experienced what you folks call the Golden Era first hand. It wasn't vintage. It was just reality and I liked it. I've spent the rest of my life trying to stay there and looking for that world wherever I can find it. Others around me may think I'm a little excentric but they realize it's just who I am. Once and a while I get dragged kicking and screaming into the present when I have too but retreat into my era as soon as possible. I figure there is enough in the world that we have no control over but one thing we can control is how we live out personal lives. I choose to surround myself with things that I feel comfortable with. As to the computer and on line. The primary function of that is too find more old stuff. I figure that's a trade off because back in the day the things I want were just new everyday items and all we had to do is pick up the Wards catalog and order it. Now I look on the internet.
Well not sure if all that is on topic. It's just what came to mind.

 

[SGT Rocket]

B
Also, are there any 18th or 17th or earlier full time lifestyle people out there. Is there some guy living in a mud hut on the moors of Ireland wearing rough wool and illuminating velum manuscripts at this very moment?

Hmmmm...Not so much the 17th or 18th Century but people living in mud huts, by choice. http://small-scale.net/yearofmud/
Now I'm sure some of these "Mud Hutters" or "Cob Housing People" or "Retro Homes Extremists" or "Environmentalists" live in a mud hut, then drive their Chevy Tahoe to their chemical engineering job. Others, maybe just live in a stucco home to get a taste of the lifestyle. Others may have mud looking wallpaper and a metal roof on their homes painted to look like thatch because they want to live that lifestyle, but their kids are allergic to mud and real thatch. Others may not be able to afford anything other than a mud home on some unclaimed piece of land. Others, probably live in a third world nation, where a mud hut is the norm and nothing unusual.

And still others may even live in a mud hut, ride a donkey to their organic garden, and saddle up their oxen to a cart to sell their homemade feemo (spelling?) beads at the nearest Rainbow Gathering, Burning Man, or Phish (are they still around?) concert.

Each of the aforementioned groups groups probably have a name they call their "all inclusive group or subculture." They probably have names that they call each individual sub group within their subculture. I know when I was in high-school, some people were "posers" for what ever "inauthentic" sin they may have committed.

I'm not sure if I'm really making any since here. Maybe I'm trying to draw some parallel? I would like to give a hat tip to my friend Ingrid for the link. She is into building Cob houses.

Edit: I guess I'm saying we are not alone in the conundrum.

Edit #2: This is a whole village of Mud Huts: http://www.dancingrabbit.org/

 

[missjo]

Sorry for bringing a old topic back to life.
I just rarely check out all the new topics.

During a interview I was once called A Neotraditionalist in Extremis.
I had to google the definition and realised it was a very good description.
Neo traditionalism is a bit like combining old and new, getting the best of both worlds.
It is a well known style in architecture and art where people look back at the past for inspiration for something new.
Here in the Netherlands the 1930s house is extremely popular and many new ones in that style are being build... but of course with all the modern luxeries.
And even though I am probably more old then new, I still like the name and it stuck.
That is how I explain myself but also my (semi political) views on the world and society in general.
If I don't want to explain too much I say I am just old fashioned.

 

[LandGirl1980]

I have no wish to get involved in the big debate that seems to be raging - but I have to say - I am not all that keen on a label. I have no problem with there being one, as such, but I don't know if I would use it myself.

However - it might stop my long waffling sentance of :-

"Oh? How I dress? Well.. I am really into 1940's history and it kind of went from there. I am into the Tudors too - but the dresses are too big".:laugh:

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Very interesting thread. I certainly have learned a lot. I would call the vintage purists (see I just unconsciously named you) either "vintage purists" or "pop atavists." I still must dissociate the fashion element from the discussion of cultural identity (which is what I think this thread is really about), for I believe the two are being conflated.

The people who are the subject of this thread--people who attempt to dress and act in accordance with their own presuppositions of past cultural values, norms, and fashions-- I believe, are attempting to recreate lifestyles which are ultimately reflective of their subjective apprehensions and perceptions of media depictions of pop cultural eras (e.g., 20s, 30s, 40s, etc.).

The medium for these folks is clothing, fashion, accessories, etc.. It seems to be a product of the pop cultural era itself in which people believe they can simplify cultural eras in terms of the superficial elements of fashion, style, and social etiquette and consequently label social groups and subgroups along the lines of stylistic choices, rather than the opposite. When did our culture become so style obsessed? Take a look back into the real histories of these eras and you see a myriad of conflicting and contrasting styles, lifestyles, and ideologies--a social order as complex if not more complex than that of our own. The truth is: humans have not fundamentally changed in terms of needs, desires, and in attempting to find the answers to the ultimate questions of life.

This leads me to my conclusion: I don't mean to be harsh or abrasive, but pop atavism appears to be a contemporary social phenomenon, one of the many cultural groups left in the wake of 20th Century Pop Culture. Rather than actually embodying the cultural norms and values of a previous age, pop atavists are only recreating worlds which are fictitiously imagined in their own minds, ones which are the product of mass media inundation for the last fifty years. As vintage purists, they attempt to live a life stylistically based on superficial appearances of previous eras, mostly as depicted in magazines, film, and television.

Lets let fashion be fashion, ideologies be ideologies, and accept the fact that though we can be critical of our own culture and the cultures around us, we cannot always escape our culture, and moreover, we certainly cannot authentically create a culture or recreate a culture from the past (for this is impossible), but rather we can attempt freely to live a life ethically according to each of our own respective conceptions of the good, wearing what we will.

 

[missjo]

I think you have a good point and that for many this retro lifestyle is mostly based on an ideal image of the past and only concerns super visual things like fashion.
That is how it started for me, I fell in love with the era because of sensory subjects like clothing, movies, music, design, etc.
When I first learned about the 1930s I (like most people) thought it was just poverty and depression.
When I fell in love with the 1930s I thought about the movies, art deco, music, etc. the good bits.

But after having a 1930s based lifestyle for a lot of years it has gone to the next level.
It has become more then 'just' a way of living, I do seriously think that the past can help us move forward and have even considered starting some sort of movement that tries to bring the best of the past into the present and use our history to try and solve problems we have in the modern world.
I do follow 1930s etiquette and try and get other people to do the same, simply because it works and makes life better for all involved.
I think that the way I life is a lot (not perfectly of course) like that of someone living back then, my style is not glamourus, I don't look like a movie star or the perfect house wife, I spend most of my time darning stockings, I wash by hand, have no tv, no microwave, no mobile phone and only this computer for my work and some contact with other insane people like me.

Of course I cannot base my lifestyle on personal experience and movies and magazines are one of my sources, but I take those with a grain of salt.
I am a researcher and Historical Consultant, so I use lots of other sources as well.
I speak to eyewitnesses, read scientific historical papers but mostly I learn about the past by just living it.
Decorate your home authentically and you'll be forced to adapt your living to the things you have (or don't have), the furniture etc.
I don't assume that my lifestyle is perfectly 1930s but so far everyone who has visited me who has actually lived trough that time told me I get pretty close.

So I think that you are right but when I go out in my often repaired old long flower pattern dress, hair up, darned stockings, no makeup and a coat that needs turning, I know I don't look like what most people think about when they think 1930s women, but I look more like the average low income housewife going out to do some shopping.
Because that's what I am

 

[LizzieMaine]

This leads me to my conclusion: I don't mean to be harsh or abrasive, but pop atavism appears to be a contemporary social phenomenon, one of the many cultural groups left in the wake of 20th Century Pop Culture. Rather than actually embodying the cultural norms and values of a previous age, pop atavists are only recreating worlds which are fictitiously imagined in their own minds, ones which are the product of mass media inundation for the last fifty years. As vintage purists, they attempt to live a life stylistically based on superficial appearances of previous eras, mostly as depicted in magazines, film, and television.

Lets let fashion be fashion, ideologies be ideologies, and accept the fact that though we can be critical of our own culture and the cultures around us, we cannot always escape our culture, and moreover, we certainly cannot authentically create a culture or recreate a culture from the past (for this is impossible), but rather we can attempt freely to live a life ethically according to each of our own respective conceptions of the good, wearing what we will.

I think when you're talking about adopted subcultures you're correct -- but what about those of us who simply live the way we were raised? To assume that early 20th century values and tastes disappeared after 1950 or 1960 or whatever cutoff you choose is quite incorrect -- they lingered on in many areas for far longer than that. The world I grew up in, in a small town in the late sixties and early seventies, was far closer to the culture of the 1930s and 1940s than it was to the culture of the 1980s and 1990s, especially within my own family. The cultural phenomenon of "The Sixties," especially, didn't happen in my town.

That's where I think true atavism comes into play -- if you were raised with the values and cultural preferences of an era earlier than the current one, and you've stuck to those despite cultural pressures to abandon them, what then? That to me seems to fit the dictionary definition of "atavism" -- a throwback to an earlier form. There are a number of us here who didn't decide one day to "go vintage" because we liked old movies -- and it goes a lot deeper than the clothes we're wearing. If the "vintage subculture" were to disappear tomorrow, we'd still be here.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the "cultural attitudes and values" of other eras were by no means uniform -- it's assumed today that everyone sixty or seventy years ago thought according to a certain uniform pattern. Which isn't the case -- real, actual people then were as diverse in their views as people are today. Being raised with the values of the Era, for example, doesn't mean necessarily that you were raised to believe in racism -- you might have been raised, as I was, by people who took a progressive view of such matters. To insist that anyone who diverges from the stereotyped view of the past is taking a superficially idealized view of it is to engage in just such superficial stereotyping in the other direction.

 

[missjo]

In Amsterdam where I live in the 1930s there was a gay bar with people cross dressing, the owner a woman who dressed as a man who owned a motorbike that she used to race pretty girls around the city with.
There was a club where Dutch black men pretended to be American jazz players to pick up more girls.
There were single mother who owned shops and even companies, there was modern art, modern architecture, very little racism, very little antisemitism (some say less then there is today), every house build after 1933 had its own bathroom, entire neighbourhoods were being build for the social lower classes, etc, etc.
I'm not saying this to make the 1930s sound better then they were, but just to show that this era fits very well with some rather modern views.
As a single woman who owns a company, who is left wing, has no religion and is rather independent, I still would not be a total outcast in my city if it had been 1939.
With other words, put me in a timemachine and send me back and the only thing that would make me stand out is that I'm a bit taller then the average 1930s woman.
I'd feel at home.

And yes, life in 1930s Amsterdam is incomparable to life in a Dutch village, Berlin, London, America, etc.
But depending on where you live and what your lifestyle is, it sometimes is a lot less hard to "fit in" the past then it may seem at first sight.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Miss Joeri, I totally respect your commitment. As a teacher in this era of technological inundation, I try to stress to my students the necessity of having a degree of control over their environments as a way of improving their learning and education--as well as their overall quality of life. I believe that you have accomplished this feat, and admirably so at that. But, I have also stressed to them the importance of not letting themselves become defined by their environment, the attitudes and actions of others, and the superficial fashions and technologies that seem to define our teens today. Teaching them, instead, to be critical and proactive has been a great challenge.

When reading Thoreau's Walden, my students were obsessed with the idea that Thoreau's real mission in that cabin, out in the woods, alone, was to adopt some "primitive" lifestyle, become a recluse, devoid of technology. That wasn't his mission at all. He wasn't looking for some permanent change of lifestyle to somehow enact a state of peace and moral idealism. Actually, Thoreau led a relatively normal life for his time period, which was a very simple life even in comparison to life of the 30s. Even then, Thoreau was highly critical of social life of the 30s and 40s--the 1830s and 40s.

Thoreau sought to "simplify his life" out in the cabin at Walden pond to experience an unmediated life, in touch with nature--life at its essence and core--in order to see for himself what life ultimately was or meant, for better or for worse, independent of social arrangements, careers, and luxuries.

The ultimate message, though, is that what is ultimately important and meaningful in life lies beyond the superficial and extrinsic aspects of our social lives: etiquette, fashion, technology, social norms and values. It may take the abandonment of some of these superficialities to it make it more apparent to ourselves, but in no way are we required to attempt to imitate the lifestyle of a previous era under the pretenses that doing that in itself amounts to a more meaningful or moral life in comparison to just being critically aware of the corrupt norms and values of our current age and making a concerted effort to control our social environment and do what is right.

 

[missjo]

I don't think I am imitating the lifestyle of a previous era, I feel I am living my lifestyle of my era, it is just the rest of the world thats doing it wrong

But I know that living according to old morals and etiquette actually does make my life better, more meaningful and that is also has this impact on the people around me.
And I think that by bringing some of that will make things better for all.
Simply because I experience that happening in my daily life.
I don't think the past is a better place but I know that there is a lot we can learn from it.
That is why I don't call myself a vintage lover, retro this or that, but a Neo Traditionalist; combining the best of the past and the present into a better future.
I can't do this with any of the modern etiquette books or moral ideas because they are so alien to my way of thinking, so much of the "happy & free" 1960s and 1970s has messed up social rules and interaction that I have to go back a few decades to find rules that actually work and make sense.
Even if I ever decide to look and live like a modern person again, I'd still follow 1930s etiquette and way of dealing with people, it just makes more sense and is less anti social.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Lizzie, I want to be clear in that I was not attacking legitimate cultural traditions and values that have been passed down through families and small communities over the ages. If you are correct, and the values and traditions you hold on to were passed down and legitimately cultivated, then I would imagine these values and traditions are not of the 30s or 40s, but are far older than that, as no cultural age develops in a vacuum. The values and traditions of the folk are very old, as in the case of Yeats and Joyce, who realized the folk values and traditions of Ireland dated back to pre-christian Celtic Ireland.

I was right, though, in my claim that the main idea of this thread had to do with cultural identity, rather than fashion, for I have been attempting to delineate the two. One of my points has to do with this question: what does older cultural values or traditions have to do with what you wear? You can act like a man from the 40s (whatever that may be, I still have my doubts) and dress like someone today, and vice versa.