when you dress in Vintage do you also think & act, talk like they did from the era?

[AtomicEraTom]

I live my life fairly vintage all the way 'round. My clothes, if not vintage are vintage inspired. The vast majority of household items, appliances, furnishings, etc are vintage. Finally, the way I carry myself in general is fairly vintage. It's not an act I'm trying to play, it's just what I'm comfortable with. I've always had more in common with my 'Greatest Generation' counterparts, than with my modern peers.

 

[RodeoRose]

I've picked up all sorts of weird expressions from watching old films. I think I spent more time watching old movies and reading old books than actually talking to people growing up lol, so I'm always accidently saying dorky things like "gee" and "golly" and "on the level". In middle school I actually went out of my way to imitate Katharine Hepburn's diction (obnoxious, yes) ... I still slip into it now and then when I'm being witchy, haha.

But no, there is no real conscious effort; as a hopelessly awkward kid, I never really got into the swing of pop culture, and I always felt more at home with old stuff. I will say that all my vintage clothes give me much better posture and graceful manners, though... move too quickly in 80-year-old rayon and you're liable to split a seam :eeek:.

 

[Undertow]

Some of us have already done something similar at past Queen Mary gatherings. As you may know, the ship has a reputation for being 'haunted' -- a reputation that the QM's owners heartily encourage (and make money from).

Very late at night, some of us --dressed to the vintage nines-- have silently strolled along the ship's more secluded sections: decks, stateroom hallways, etc. I kid you not: several people who saw us actually thought that we were ghosts, and reacted as such.

:scared: :rofl:

YES!

 

[JohnnyLoco]

"I never really got into the swing of pop culture, and I always felt more at home with old stuff."

I think this is a great point, even though I would add that old films are invariably a part of "pop culture." But by your statement, I think it is easy to understand what you really mean. Pop culture itself really is a sort of corporate media culture, determined by a select few. I think that you are saying that you have no interest in acting in accord with what is presented to you in contemporary popular media.

A pop culture can be tied to newspapers, magazines, novels and short stories, theater, radio, television, film, and the music industry, or a combination of all of the above. In all of those types of media, if you look at the past two hundred years, you have a collection of artists, writers, editors, producers, financiers and industries that were dedicated to picking and choosing what types of information they would disseminate to the public at large--the common folk. Pop culture changes based on economic need, which can account for the endless changes in musical styles, fashion, ect.. Folk culture in the natural sense, pre-1800s, develops more organically and collectively, is transmitted primarily orally, through stories and songs/poetry, and is constantly changing, not because certain cigar chomping business men decide that they need to move in a new direction to increase sales.

Then we have the "hipster." One of the first examples of the post-pop cultural sub-groups of the transition to the new internet age. They are still "pop" in essence, but they somehow find ways to nostalgically bastardize every style of the 20th century (the pop century). I even hate that they have stolen the beard and the bicycle. They have not touched vintage leather jackets, vintage work and outdoor wear, and high-end outdoor sports apparel. At least not for now.

 

[RodeoRose]

Oh yes, of course; I should have specified contemporary popular culture, or what was en vogue when I was growing up. Why, with such a rich back catalog of brilliant art and cultural relics from the early 20th century to pore over, I simply haven't the time nor the inclination to keep up with modern trends as well! lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

Oh yes, of course; I should have specified contemporary popular culture, or what was en vogue when I was growing up. Why, with such a rich back catalog of brilliant art and cultural relics from the early 20th century to pore over, I simply haven't the time nor the inclination to keep up with modern trends as well! lol

Well put. There is so much quality literature, music, movies, radio, fashion, etc. from before 1950 available for consideration that one could live their whole life without working thru it all. So why should anyone feel *obligated* to partake of the current stuff?

 

[m0nk]

Well put. There is so much quality literature, music, movies, radio, fashion, etc. from before 1950 available for consideration that one could live their whole life without working thru it all. So why should anyone feel *obligated* to partake of the current stuff?

I agree as well; I'd rather sift through the past and keep some of that feeling flowing forward. Current pop culture also appears so lazy and overdone in comparison to that of yester-year that it actually bores me.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Great point. The study of past tastes is one way out of the maelstrom. But does this alter how one believes and acts? This is a serious question for me.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

"Current pop culture also appears so lazy and overdone in comparison to that of yester-year..."

I completely agree. Industry execs don't even seem to try anymore. The customer base is there, and that is all that matters. The more the vintage scene grows, even with the help of the hipsters, the greater the possibility that some sense of the pragmatism and simplicity (and yes, style) of yesteryear can be restored to popular trends.

I've seen a change in the way I place a value on certain consumer goods. Some might say that I am being a cheap ba***rd, but I really don't see the sense of paying the grossly inflated prices attached to such cheaply made and uninspired crap. Anyone else agree?

 

[Gene]

The only noticeable changes in me since I've dressed vintage are my manners have improved, I am at times more courteous, and definitely more polite. Then again, I've gotten also gotten older and realized those values instilled in me were correct.

 

[sheeplady]

I haven't changed a bit. I do have a mildly different accent professionally and personally here than when I go home. But otherwise, no. I identify my behaviors more with my country upbringing than anything else. Being a country person living in a city, even a small city, is somewhat interesting as it makes the differences in lifestyles so readily apparent.

I do try to be more aware of my actions when I am dressed differently. When you are a member of any small group, you might be the only one of that group that someone meets. There is a good chance they are going to base their opinion of and treat every other member of any group based upon how that one person acts. It's highly likely that I am going to be one of the few vintage people they meet, and I'd rather them have an extra good impression of the people who dress vintage, just so the next lady or gentleman gets treated has it easier.

 

[Undertow]

I completely agree. Industry execs don't even seem to try anymore. The customer base is there, and that is all that matters. The more the vintage scene grows, even with the help of the hipsters, the greater the possibility that some sense of the pragmatism and simplicity (and yes, style) of yesteryear can be restored to popular trends...

Unfortunately, if any sense of style, pragmatism or simplicity is achieved through an increased popularity of "vintage", it will be sloughed as quickly when a newer, slicker gimmick arrives.

The Golden Era is dead. We Loungers, and various other vintage enthusiasts, bear the torch for as long as we can. Meanwhile, the concept we hold dear will be bastardized every 50 years or so until it becomes a pathetic caricature of itself. [/curmudgeonly rant]

 

[Feraud]

Great point. The study of past tastes is one way out of the maelstrom. But does this alter how one believes and acts? This is a serious question for me.

Broadening one's horizons through study, travel, food, exposure to different experiences should alter how we act and believe. I'd be shocked if it didn't change a person.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

"Unfortunately, if any sense of style, pragmatism or simplicity is achieved through an increased popularity of "vintage", it will be sloughed as quickly when a newer, slicker gimmick arrives."

This is highly likely, but I think there is a difference between lesser reincarnations of vintage styles and products to fit modern trends and an actual return or resurgence of the "vintage" values and aesthetic. To me, dressing, thinking, and acting vintage has very broad social implications that could help future generations, and is something the President (yes, I said it) could pay attention to (rather than who is being taxed the most, who should receive the most handouts, new energy, and other trivial concerns). Here is why:

For example, major designers and clothing companies since the 50s or 60s have attempted to reissue or emulate classic styles, from formal clothing, to work wear and outdoor wear, etc.. Probably from the 50s to the 70s, the quality was more or less on par because the cultural values and tastes were similar to maybe the past 50 years--very practical, sensible , and quality driven. I don't want to over generalize, because I know every decade has had its share of cheaply made, gimmicky and trendy items.

Maybe it was sometime in the 80s that this cycle began, and has continued until now, that designers (Gap, Eddie Bauer, Hugo Boss, Ralph Lauren, Brooks Brothers, etc.) looked only to the superficial fashion element of the previously mentioned classic styles (as well as military) to continuously update clothing lines and fashions using foreign labor, cheaper materials, without real attention to quality, etc.. This is another lame gimmick that, yes, is very transient and trendy and only reinforces the consumer driven mentality that corporations have tried to instill into Americans: "Buy, Buy, Buy, Buy cheaply made disposable crap, Buy, Buy, throw it all out and buy some more." Far from the creative and productive giant that America once was, America now is a lazy, slothful, wasteful, using machine.

I don't dress "authentically vintage" but I do integrate quality vintage items from every era I can find to meet my practical needs. I believe in simplicity. I think that those who dress completely period appropriate are a little nutty, but cool. I do not have a disdain for anything modern that is well made and made in a country in which its design company is based. But here is what I see around me that gives me hope:

The rise of vintage enthusiasts who take part on sites such as this one.
The hipsters who love vintage stuff.
The rise in the interest in antiques and collectible items. You can thank shows such as American Pickers, etc. for this.
The rise in old-style trades and craftsmen, from the blacksmith and leather worker (think Renaissance festivals) to tailoring and furniture making.
The rise in the "reclamation" of old items for fashion and decoration.

I actually don't think that what the "Golden Era" stood for is dead. I think that the more that people "turn off" to popular media and drop into an "atavist" way of life (not culture, but possibly a new way of life), through vintage enthusiasm in whatever form, the more corporations will be forced to follow suit and once again give a damn about what they're producing and about creating jobs in America. Then, also, maybe there could be a similar return of older etiquette, politeness, community involvement, ethics, etc..

In opposition to what the president said last night, the answer for economic salvation is not cheaper higher education, but rather it is a complete reversal of social concerns and values, civic and community pride, not over consumerism, but production and frugality, education to instill Western cultural values and creativity, not as a means to an end to produce wealth. Some people are scientists and some are factory workers, but it is family and community, God and country that should be the concern of the people, not who makes more or has more, who is taxed the least or the most, or who gets what from Uncle Sam.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Unfortunately, if any sense of style, pragmatism or simplicity is achieved through an increased popularity of "vintage", it will be sloughed as quickly when a newer, slicker gimmick arrives.

The Golden Era is dead. We Loungers, and various other vintage enthusiasts, bear the torch for as long as we can. Meanwhile, the concept we hold dear will be bastardized every 50 years or so until it becomes a pathetic caricature of itself. [/curmudgeonly rant]

Unfortunately, I have to agree. There will, hopefully, always be people interested in the Era and what it stood for -- what it *really* stood for, not what agenda-driven revisionists want you to think it stood for -- but as it recedes into history, as people who experienced it or were directly affected by it one way or another die off, it's going to become more and more a gimmick and an ironic fashion statement than any kind of meaningful reality. The 1980s pastiche version of the Era is already the dominant vision in the minds of the general public -- and I don't just mean fashion. It's probably too late now to ever truly recover the reality, and I'm only hoping I won't live to see what kind of "modern take on the first third of the 20th century" is floating around in 2050 or so.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Lizzie, do you really think that what the "Golden Era" *really* stood for is dead? I see you as one of the few who really understand that "Golden Era" really had little to do with trivial fashion or the superficial accents and mannerisms depicted in Hollywood of that era. Isn't it much broader? Isn't it alive in some form or another in certain strains of society? I'm not talking about reenactors or movie fans. And doesn't the issue go back a lot further than the Golden Era? Thoreau comes to mind. He believed that the poor of his day were poor only because they appeared poor (from lack of taste), yet they managed with much more than he did. He believed that most people, even the poor, had too much stuff. He cared little about money or participating in wasteful consumer practices. He emphasized ethical and physical necessities, not material wants and desires. Am I wrong, but isn't this what the Golden Era (as people in these forums like invoke), in part, was *really* about. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Sorry to go on a semi-political rant. To the presidents credit, he did talk a lot about manufacturing, but it seemed too hypothetical and based on new technologies that don't exist or the once failing automobile industry. I'm talking about that thousands of mundane products, from glass jars, zippers, shoe laces, toys, nobs, etc., that were once made in America and probably never will be again. He seemed to be politely asking industry, rather than strongly demanding.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Having been poor for a good part of my life, I don't go in much for romanticising poverty. Those who claim it's a simpler way of life have never had to actually live that life. That said, though, I think postwar consumer culture is one of the most corrupt -- and corrupting -- forces humanity has ever unleashed on itself. We've created a completely unsustainable society and we pretend that if we *just fix this* or *just fix that* or support this cause or that cause, everything will be better. It's like trying to paint a rotten house.

In my view, we were on the right track in the mid-to-late thirties. We were moving toward a just, decent society. Not fast, not far enough, but we were moving in the right direction. Then the war came along, and when it was over all anyone seemed to want to do was forget they'd ever had to deal with sacrifices, rationing, or any of the rest of it. The slogan was no longer "We Do Our Part," but rather "It's Dough, Let's Go!" and "U Auto Buy Now!"

For me, The Era ended on April 13, 1945, and I don't think we'll ever be able to recapture the spirit that was lost that day. And I don't see any evidence that modern culture has any idea of what that spirit actually was. Modern society is terrified at the very thought of sacrificing for the greater good in a way that was taken for granted in The Era, and is convinced that the very idea of a "greater good" is some kind of sinister plot to take away their flat screens and their iPhones. As long as those values and that ethos -- the Cult of the Individual -- rules, the Era is never coming back.

 

[vitanola]

Bravo, Miss Maine!

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Sorry to go on a semi-political rant. To the presidents credit, he did talk a lot about manufacturing, but it seemed too hypothetical and based on new technologies that don't exist or the once failing automobile industry. I'm talking about that thousands of mundane products, from glass jars, zippers, shoe laces, toys, nobs, etc., that were once made in America and probably never will be again. He seemed to be politely asking industry, rather than strongly demanding.

One of my interests that relates to the Golden Era is technological and industrial history -- the history of various companies and their products. I know I've said this somewhere in another thread but I fear that even if we provided the much-needed tax incentives and regulatory reform to convince companies to stay in America or to come back home, the biggest challenge we would face is the almost insurmountable task of rebuilding an entire work force from scratch. Today the average age of an American-born factory or skilled worker is 55. In the nearly half century that we've transitioned from a manufacturing based economy to a service based consumer one, we have allowed the skills necessary for the former to atrophy. Very few schools offer shop courses anymore (why train for a job that no longer exists?) -- many Americans don't even know how to change a spare tire!

And if that wasn't bad enough we have a contemporary culture that disdains such work. Today any bright young man or woman (no doubt with visions of a generous benefits package dancing in their heads) will instead aspire to a career as a cubicle-dwelling corporate hamster -- jobs whose skills don't seem quite as transferable as previously thought, which many have discovered these last few years.