[Phlegmscope]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I just like being unavailable when I leave home.

That's understandable; I keep my phone on silent most of the time and I rarely answer it if the call comes from a number I don't recognize.

[LifeDistortion]

I'm not retro, I'm vintage. The difference is Retro is someone who lives in the past because they don't know anything about what's currently going on. Vintage is preffering the past over what's currently going on.

[m^a(t)h]

i smoke lucky strikes

i win

[Dues]

Alright, here goes. I don't mean this to come off as sharp as it does, but I have a vicious thing against all things 'retro'. I hate things because they are 'retro'. I just don't see how nostalgia or the passing of time could make a certain object more valuable. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not dissing all things old here, on the contrary, there are lots of old things in my surroundings (tactile and non-tactile), as there are new ones, but I protect myself from loving/liking objects (of culture) BECAUSE they are old. It just doesn't make any sense. They were very new at some point. Like I don't like Hitchcock because his films are in black and white and have that '60 feel to them. I like them because they're greatly directed pictures, and it'd be stupid to diss them because they aren't new. This is why I am fond of updates. Like you can love mixtapes because they have a certain aesthetic quality that you can't find in any other medium, but you can't diss .mp3's along the way. They have that same aesthetic in their own way. And it's very valuable in that own way. Be there to recognize the aesthetic now, is what I think. In short it comes to this: media/objects are there to serve a certain demand (i.e. communication) in life. Or let me rephrase: media are still – surprise surprise – object when they have become subject today, and can't have become the only subject in the ongoing conversation, with a clear emphasis on 'ongoing', (r)evolving. If not, why would we want to speak any longer? New people are born every day, and everything changes, and we speak – in its widest of meanings – only to give answer to our being thrown into this world, to our being here. This will go on and on untill there's no more birth. Naturally, this will never happen. Our being born craves for others or other things, or statements for that matter, being born.

Also, let it be just as clear that I feel the same towards a desire to relish all things new BECAUSE they are new. To me, the world and its objects are all equally valuable; each have their own qualities and it's up to their user to use them for the right purpose, because of how great each one is, and not because they are old or new. For example (yet another one): I love VHS, and I think it's very legitimate to still bring out films on VHS, VHS is great and DVD will never capture its feel. But VHS will never be able to bring what DVD can bring.

I could go on and on about this. It has a lot to do with living your life in the present, loving your past and future in the process. It's like if I could, I would see every new movie (the ones I want to see ofcourse) in the best of presentation options. Why wouldn't you? That for one is nothing new. THX, dolby surround, screens the size of football fields, the works… Those medial specifications can place one in the present, are symptoms of our time now, and the film they present has been given shape by them in that time, and there's no point in denying that time, 'cause in its very own way, it's just deadly wonderful (as were those 'retro' objects when they weren't 'retro' yet, but brand spankin' new and had the power to be just what they were, undone of some fake romantic idea that has grown around them, that has blurred them out; take away the dust). It's like when you look at Jurassic Park now, or Suspiria for that matter, you think the special effects are just very non-realistic, even though you know that when you saw it when it came out you were totally amazed by how realistic those effects were and got caught up in the story being told [EDIT: which to me should be the final product of any conversation].

Suspiria could be a very good example of this. Adequatly updating that film could strip it from its 'haha, look how funny, that blood looks just like ketchup, it's so not realistic, I love it' (to me lame) meaning that retro has put around it. It could bring back its original effect and the desires of the director so much better than the original ever could today, at least if you're not willing to take away the dust.

I suppose by now it's pretty clear I'm passionate about these things… So I'll leave it at this. Thanks for reading if you have.

[Savage Clone]

Well, I like my "retro" furniture because it looks like it's from the fucking future.
Old things become valuable because things get ruined over time. If you have something that has stayed nice, it is irreplaceable and hence accrues value.
I like "retro" design because the aesthetic that was in vogue in "modern" circles in the middle of the 20th century looks the best to me. That's it.

I don't think anyone who replied to this thread likes old things simply because they are old. That's just stupid. Just because it's old doesn't make it cool by default. To suggest that anyone here was talking in that way is way off base to my way of reading this thread.

And LPs really do sound better than CDs.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Phlegmscope

That's understandable; I keep my phone on silent most of the time and I rarely answer it if the call comes from a number I don't recognize.

it's the numbers i recognize that i mostly choose to ignore

[Phlegmscope]

I already have all those people's numbers on my phone, who do not call me with an intention for asking me to particiapate a survey or to sell something.

One guy harrassed me for several days.

[RIPfrey05]

I listen to sonic youth.

[RIPfrey05]

Originally Posted by RIPfrey05

I listen to sonic youth.

Originally Posted by JESUS CHRIST

INDIE!

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by Daycare Nation

4. I have one of those looking glass things on a handle, that you hold up to one eye when you can't see very well.

a monocle haha, but that was all hilarious.

That was some of the funniest shit I've read here in in a long time.

[Phlegmscope]

I want a bowler hat but they are expensive as fuck.

[Alex's Trip]

Originally Posted by trance feeeedback

I listen to CD over mp3. Whats a CD you ask? Go ask your parents, you Ipod fucker.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

You use your computer, you rip the cd at low compression for better quality, and you put it on your ipod for when you are out of the house. When you are home you use the CD.

[acousticrock87]

Eh. iPods are expensive, they break easily, and I can fit my CD player in my pocket. I am perfectly content listening to one CD, so I will never buy an iPod.

I'll buy something else equally stupid instead.

[RdTv]

I like what I like and thats about all. Lp's represent the entire painting, canvas and all- the whole experience, and cd's represent a postcard of that or a snapshot of that- the basic picture but scaled down for easy transport. Hopefully all can weigh their own options as to what is "cool"...be it old or new, its really what appeals to you that is cool, honesty goes a long way with oneself when deciding such things.

[Dues]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I like "retro" design because the aesthetic that was in vogue in "modern" circles in the middle of the 20th century looks the best to me. That's it.

This is where we sort of differ, I think, with an emphasis on 'think'. Through what has given my thinking shape to date, I can't think of an expression (i.e. making a piece of furniture) without thinking of a context (i.e. time) it was made in. That has me thinking of what circumstances in a period of time make an expression. What conditions were at hand when the expression was given a shape. A shape that could only be what it was when created at that time. Change the context (i.e. the invention and practice of the green screen in film making) and the aesthetic changes, and through the aesthetic the expression changes. In short, aesthetic to me is in no way coincidential at hand (this does not exclude the concept of chance from being a possible and valuable part in a process of creation), to our liking, a posteriori, for that I've become too aware of the process that brings to creation. Thus aesthetic can't be looked upon/enjoyed as a closed entity. This is not a fact, there are no facts, I just can't think of it in any other way. It's what I dislike in 'retro': there's the judgement of a certain expression at an 'a posteriori aesthetic' level of the final product, mixed with how that product has been perceived through time, there's grown a cloud of perception around the original expression that was made. And an expression, that which someone felt the need to say to, for me is the only thing that can carry meaning.

I'd like to insert this statement by Lawrence Weiner here: 'Taken from here to where it came from, and taken to a place, and used in such a manner that it can only remain as a representation of what it was and where it came from.' Old objects are representations of what they were, and though we can enjoy representations, that what it is can only be revealed in things that are, today. Old objects are here today as well, ofcourse, and therefore can be as well, but never as that what it was, but only of what it could be today. I'm pointing out that the concept of an object changes continually, and that it should be measured by present demand at all time. To me, 'retro' is the exact opposite of this measurement: the old object is liked for what it was and not what it could be/would be today. It's similar to loving/having objects for what they have been: 'I have this guitar because Thurston Moore played it once', 'I have this copy of this book because it was signed by the author', 'I bought this jar full of Britney Spears (or Kim Gordon for that matter) breath'. This is also why I have no desire to 'diss' things that are old BECAUSE they are old; because they can still be very valuable expressions to be made/heard.

Therefore, I'm not stating that you have to know all the circumstances, the context in which a certain expression was made to be able to enjoy it, quite the opposite really; that would come off as elitist, which I'm not in the popular sense of the word (re: arrogant). I'm just saying products to me are residu of a process that lead to their creation and that the real question in liking/enjoying a product is asking whether any process could be thinked of today that would lead to the same product, for the product will never be as that what it was when it was created, but merely as a representation of that what it was, a relic that belongs in a museum.

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I don't think anyone who replied to this thread likes old things simply because they are old. That's just stupid. Just because it's old doesn't make it cool by default. To suggest that anyone here was talking in that way is way off base to my way of reading this thread.

The way I used the phrase 'old BECAUSE it's old' did not imply liking all old things, that's reversing the statement. I had one fictive, though specific piece in mind when I wrote that down. A piece that someone likes, but might only like because of what it's become through time – not realising that it's quite possible to make an object today that would look totally different at first sight, but has in effect the very same impulse to its creation – and, furthermore, might not have liked it had he/she lived in the time it was made.

[Daycare Nation]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

a monocle haha, but that was all hilarious.

That was some of the funniest shit I've read here in in a long time.

heh, thanks

[Dues]

Originally Posted by RdTv

Lp's represent the entire painting, canvas and all- the whole experience, and cd's represent a postcard of that or a snapshot of that- the basic picture but scaled down for easy transport.

If you're not saying LP's are in fact the entire painting, which I think you're not, but can be compared to a good representation/reproduction of the painting in a book, thus comparing CD's to a representation/reproduction of the painting on a postcard or a snapshot of the painting, I really couldn't agree with you more here. Wonderfully spoken.

Though to me, each representation/reproduction is equally interesting and in effect necessary to reveal the expression that once lead to the painting. Through numerous repitition (the effect of numerous reproductions) that expression becomes tangeable; for nothing can ever literally be repeated (LP's differ from CD's differ from iTunes differ from MC's etc.). This is due to the concept of time. Saying one thing will always differ from saying the exact same thing again. All these different repititions of what looks the same all add a perception to the expression. It is in the juxtaposition of these perceptions that the expression becomes – as said – tangeable.

[Savage Clone]

Dues:
You have made a very well-reasoned and realized argument there, and for that I give you full credit.
However, it still does not account for the fact that certain shapes and color schemes will tend to resonate with individuals as aesthetically pleasing or even just "cool looking" on a base level. It's almost on the same level of "you can't help who you fall in love with." The context I view my furniture in is the context of my own home and lifestyle and the environment I enjoy hanging around around in.
It's like your analogy to Hitchcock. I think we probably agree more than we disagree here, and I do appreciate the thought you have obviously put into this.

[Dues]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

However, it still does not account for the fact that certain shapes and color schemes will tend to resonate with individuals as aesthetically pleasing or even just "cool looking" on a base level. It's almost on the same level of "you can't help who you fall in love with."

I'm agreeing with you on this. Love's what makes it (worth it).

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I think we probably agree more than we disagree here, and I do appreciate the thought you have obviously put into this.

Yeah, I know, and THX for the appreciation. Glad it's being read.
I guess it's really just the concept of defining 'retro' as some sort of lifestyle or credo, as I believe some in this thread were implying through their posts (but know that I might start believing this the moment I hear the dreaded word 'retro'), that got me all worked up and thinking and typing.

[Alex's Trip]

Originally Posted by acousticrock87

Eh. iPods are expensive, they break easily, and I can fit my CD player in my pocket. I am perfectly content listening to one CD, so I will never buy an iPod.

I'll buy something else equally stupid instead.

I think they are worth the price. My family = total of 5 ipods and none of them broke. The part about them breaking easily is just a myth that started from people that take shitty care of their stuff.

I don't dislike CD's or CD players. I still buy all of my CD's and people think I'm crazy for that, and I still want to buy a record player to start getting some vinyl.

(if your curious as to why we had so many ipods, my dad had an original ipod and sold it for a new one, my sister and I got one for birthdays and my mom got one recently because she has started working out and wanted something small to take with her while she jogged, a cd player would have skipped anyway) And they all worked fine.