Retro-extremists? What are we called?

[Carlisle Blues]

"Anachronist"

 

[Senator Jack]

Maybe make the point that the Atavist generally makes use of elements of modern technology as a means to an end, rather than embracing them as an end in themselves

Will do and excellent point, Lizzie. Keep 'em coming. Hell, I think we got something here.

 

[LizzieMaine]

A key difference between Atavism and other "retro" subcultures is that the Atavist generally avoids, and often disdains a detatched, ironic view of their specific chronological era -- and therefore will often appreciate on their original merits elements of popular culture that are more often viewed by contemporary observers thru the lens of camp.

 

[Senator Jack]

A key difference between Atavism and other "retro" subcultures is that the Atavist generally avoids, and often disdains a detatched, ironic view of their specific chronological era -- and therefore will often appreciate on their original merits elements of popular culture that are more often viewed by contemporary observers thru the lens of camp.

That is going in the manifesto :eusa_clap.

And, of course, we have to address this issue:

A general point of attack on the Atavist subculture is that by celebrating the culture of a bygone era, there is an inherent celebration of a culture that is ethically and morally undeveloped. Critics believe Atavists would like to revive a world where women and minorities are subjugated, where discrimination is the norm, but even a cursory study of the Atavist will show that these charges are wholly unfounded.

Needs more.

 

[Fletch]

No $#!! it needs more. Yes, there are no doubt people who adopt a form of atavism that is complete, extending to the socio-political, but that is not what it's all about.

"Atavism" the word does seem to have a tinge to it, tho, and the tinge is biological, pre-rational, anti-civilized. I don't necessarily like that.

Another charge that could be defended - and hopefully defended against - is that we're primitive modernists, the kind who want scientific rational authority to run roughshod over civilization. No, I say, that train's left the station and passenger service has been discontinued. We're postmodernists, but we're postmodernists who have been there, done that and bought the t-shirt (oftentimes accumulating whole drawerfuls). We're no longer mixing it up because that's all we know how to do; we're guided by – something. Taste? Common experiences? Common lack of experiences? Society's quiet voice whispering, "no, you can't"? What?

FWIW, I like to think of myself as "post-generationalist." Meaning you choose your culture, rather than have it foisted on you by your cohort or your era.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That is going in the manifesto :eusa_clap.

And, of course, we have to address this issue:

A general point of attack on the Atavist subculture is that by celebrating the culture of a bygone era, there is an inherent celebration of a culture that is ethically and morally undeveloped. Critics believe Atavists would like to revive a world where women and minorities are subjugated, where discrimination is the norm, but even a cursory study of the Atavist will show that these charges are wholly unfounded.

Needs more.

Indeed, the Atavist will often devote specific study to these aspects of their chosen culture, with an emphasis on drawing attention to those progressive aspects of the time which are often ignored or downplayed in current-day depictions of their era, a trait they often share with members of the Living History movement. The Atavist frequently seeks out a well-rounded undertanding of their chosen culture, as opposed to either a narrowly-stereotyped or over-simplified depiction.

 

[anon`]

I second anachronist. True, it may not be a proper word, but unlike atavist it isn't as likely to send people away puzzled, or rushing for their dictionary.

It is interesting that living history is brought up in connexion with the search for a catch-all term, as we're all quickly falling into that camp. Indeed, the only thing that separates those individuals to whom this thread is most applicable from LH types is the acknowledgement and (occasional) use of modern technology, to an extent. But for that, "[insert decade here] living historian" is entirely appropriate, and reasonably well-known.

 

[JimWagner]

We just used to say people dressing 40's style were old fashioned. But I guess after 70 years that doesn't even begin to cover it. Anachronistic comes closer.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I second anachronist. True, it may not be a proper word, but unlike atavist it isn't as likely to send people away puzzled, or rushing for their dictionary.

Exactly coin the term ......own it in the sense that it becomes an identifying factor for what you are and people will associate you with the contrived term and meaning.

Here is Atavist>>>>

 

[dhermann1]

Whenever I try to explain this phenomenon I use the term "Vintage-o-phile", sort of facetiously, even though I really hate the term "vintage". It's a tough question.
Senator: In your article, I assume you'll stress that there are all degrees of the phenomenon, from just wearing vintage ties or hats, to living a total lifestyle at home or abroad.
I think there is some recognition of the "Vintage movement".

 

[skyvue]

we're guided by – something. Taste? Common experiences? Common lack of experiences? Society's quiet voice whispering, "no, you can't"? What? FWIW, I like to think of myself as "post-generationalist." Meaning you choose your culture, rather than have it foisted on you by your cohort or your era.

That comes closest, speaking only for myself. I would even say that I pick and choose my culture, enjoying certain aspects of today perfectly well while looking backward to savor aspects of the 1920s, '30s, '40s, and '50s.

For me, it's keeping up with what's new while reaching back for what I missed. The decades I lived through don't much interest me -- been there, done that -- but I'm excited both by what was (in the decades that preceded my arrival) and what's to be.

I guess I don't really qualify as an atavist.

 

[Senator Jack]

Senator: In your article, I assume you'll stress that there are all degrees of the phenomenon, from just wearing vintage ties or hats, to living a total lifestyle at home or abroad.

Yeah. Not to, in any means, at all, disparage anyone here for not being 'vintage enough' (hell, that goes back to not being 'punk enough' and I always hated that) but there is definite difference between having an interest in an era and living an era. Indeed, more important, I think, is the almost total rejection of the modern era. As for myself, I go see a new movie maybe once every two years. I'm really not interested in modern literature. I haven't listened to a new band in ages (I mean anything that has to do with 'new' sounds). Certainly this is all very insular of me, and I accept that.

Regards,

Jack

 

[Chas]

"Era-Specific Anachronists".

There are so many different people I've encountered that fixate on one era or another. There was one fellow, for instance, who lived in my building for a time who absolutely nailed the look of the mid to late 1960's urban mod style.

I complimented him on his look, and he understood what I was about. The look (and culture) of the 1920's is very different from the 30's, the 40's and so on. I haven't encountered any "1980's" anachronists yet, though I'm sure that they exist somewhere, and I'm sure that there are 1970's types, too. All in all, it's a pretty diverse range of groups that are represented. There are also folks into Victorian, VintageGoth etc. etc. etc. Some consider the start point for "vintage" to be prior to 1960, though I don't necessarily agree.

 

[Senator Jack]

I'm sure that there are some 1970's ones out there, somewhere.

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/shopping/features/15246/index2.html

 

[Chas]

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/shopping/features/15246/index2.html

Ha ha!

Everything except the rampant drug use and unbridled (read: unprotected) appetites of a sexual nature. Like that line in that terrible "Austin Powers" film: "as long as people are using mind-altering substances and enjoying multiple sexual partners in a consequence-free environment, I'll be as sound as a pound...."

I guess my point was supposed to be as brief as "this is such a diverse community of anachronists that the descriptive term for "us" would have to be as all-encompassing as it could be."

I wouldn't necessarily go with the "extremist" tag, however. An extremist would run around firebombing "Hot Topic" stores.

 

[Senator Jack]

Thinking about the separation of the two, from those with an interest in the era and those that lead the life, I think it may come down to one question:

Do you go to work or attend functions in modern clothes because you're worried what other people think and want to fit in?

Again, I'm not here to be smug or give people the high-hat, just to come up with some sort of stock answer to give people and then point them to the Wikipedia article. Because as we know, if it's on Wiki, it's got to be true.

Regards,

Jack

 

[Senator Jack]

Agreed with Chas above, all-encompassing. This is from my post on Page 1

I think the term has to definitely conjure up a 20th century lifestyle, whether it's 20s, 30s, or even 70s. (yes, there are people out there who live a completely 1970s lifestyle with 8-tracks and everything.)

 

[skyvue]

Do you go to work or attend functions in modern clothes because you're worried what other people think and want to fit in?

It's tricky. I see more contemporary movies than you do, but I see easily ten times as many old ones. I listen to some new music (and generally have a rough idea what's going on in current music, even if I don't listen to a particular band), but again, I listen to more pre-1950 music than contemporary.

Far more than half of my home furnishings, housewares, and tchotchkes are vintage, but not 100%.

I dress vintage virtually 100% of the time, at work and at play.

But I don't consider myself as having turned my back on the present. So am I an atavist?

I think of it more as living with one foot in the past and one in the present. Living in several eras simultaneously, perhaps.

 

[anon`]

Thinking about the separation of the two, from those with an interest in the era and those that lead the life, I think it may come down to one question:

Do you go to work or attend functions in modern clothes because you're worried what other people think and want to fit in?

This seems much too narrow to be a valid test. Using myself as an example, I would be an [anachronist] based on the above, as I go to work and attend functions in vintage clothes, hats and what-have-you all the time. I relish it, in fact. I also love buildings, furnishings, transportation and guns from the first third of the last century.

But I make no particular effort to build the rest of my life around that period. I own and wear modern clothes regularly, love metal music and suffer withdrawl when we have a dry spell of concerts. I build computers and go LANning as a hobby, drool over gadets and would love to hang a plasma TV on my wall, and so forth. And so, even though I'm really not the kind of vintage-loving (yes, I said it) person you're trying to coin a term for here... that question alone would nevertheless seem to include me as one.

 

[Senator Jack]

Let's put it this way, Skyvue, are you able to hold a conversation about modern culture for more than five minutes? I certainly can't. I can't say much more about the Tea Party movement than what I read in the Times, and I wouldn't know Lady Gaga if she (he? I dunno) bought me a cup of coffee. Yet, ask me about mid-century Brit Literature and film and I can go on for hours.

Regards,

Jack