What seperates "golden era" from "midcentury"?

[GE-Man]

Hi!
This weekend, i bought a set of architectural photos on a local flea-market and i am asking myself whether i should file them und "golden era" or "midcentury"?
Example:


What details should i look for?

 

[Two Types]

Mid century. After all, what was 'golden' about Germany in the mid-20th century?

 

[GE-Man]

Not much was 'golden' in germanys mid-20th century.
I'd say the very first years of the "Wirtschaftswunder", before kidney-tables were common-place, are the "golden era" in germany.

 

[Stearmen]

When think of Mid Century, I always think of all the tacky Atomic inspired furniture from the 50s!

 

[GE-Man]

That picture is from 1951. I Bought it out of the nachlass of a german carpenter. My first guess was 1930s, but the stools and the door-handles on the swingdoor pointed toward 1950s. Beside that, anything else could be right out of the 1930s (that was my first guess...).

I'd like to know whether the transition from "golden era" to "midcentury" was smooth or harsh?
How about the sputnik-crisis as a tipping-point? That would be 1957...

 

[AtomicEraTom]

In Europe, it may be different, or maybe my opinion is just different. I think the Golden Era and Mid-Century overlap, beginning after WWII and ending with the start of the British Invasion.

 

[GE-Man]

An important point! One has to look not only at design, but on behavior and etiquette, too. In manners, the british invasion seems to be the end of the golden era, with support from "the pill". That was quite similar in europe. As far as i know it from history-books...

 

[tonyb]

Many of what have come to be considered icons of midcentury modernism date from well before WWII, and even prior to the Depression. Think of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's Barcelona chair, for instance. It graced the German Pavilion at the Barcelona International Exposition of 1929. (Yes, 1929.)



I'm not big on categorizing, for several reasons, but mostly because trying to make things fit into categories usually tells us more about the categorizer's biases than anything about the things themselves.

Hints of what would come to be called midcentury modernism can be detected in the Louis Sullivan designed buildings from the late 19th century. Frank Lloyd Wright pushed the aesthetic forward, although he'd probably give me an argument on that point. Schindler, Neutra, Eames (of course), Saarinen -- they, and others, firmly established what we still see as a modern, up-to-date look, but they were laying that groundwork, in some cases, more than 70 years ago.

Just yesterday I sat in a seat designed by Eames in 1961 (some say 1962) while waiting to board my plane back home. This was in an airport (Denver International) which opened in the 1990s, but its look (with the exception of that tent-like section) differs little from 1960s airport designs. And that Eames seating is still, to my eye, the most attractive airport seating around.



There's good style and bad style, no matter the particular fashion. There's beautiful midcentury design, and there's tacky midcentury design. Same can be said of the "golden era," or any other era, for that matter. Good designers borrow from here, there, and everywhere. (Wright was big on Japanese style.) Good lines are good lines. Pleasing proportions are pleasing proportions.

 

[tonyb]

I'd guess that the bulk of us were born "midcentury," depending on just where one wishes to set the dates.

The definition is subject to squishiness, for sure. That's fine by me, not that my take on it matters much.

By the way, I've been known to rail against conflating "vintage" with "retro." In my dictionary, "vintage" means the Real McCoy, an authentic item from the bygone era, whereas "retro" means a modern take on a bygone style. Alas, I rail to little effect. Popular usage trumps, and popular usage has the terms becoming more and more synonymous.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

My folks were born midcentury lol

I agree with your definitions of Vintage and Retro.

I'd guess that the bulk of us were born "midcentury," depending on just where one wishes to set the dates.

The definition is subject to squishiness, for sure. That's fine by me, not that my take on it matters much.

By the way, I've been known to rail against conflating "vintage" with "retro." In my dictionary, "vintage" means the Real McCoy, an authentic item from the bygone era, whereas "retro" means a modern take on a bygone style. Alas, I rail to little effect. Popular usage trumps, and popular usage has the terms becoming more and more synonymous.

 

[LizzieMaine]

By the way, I've been known to rail against conflating "vintage" with "retro." In my dictionary, "vintage" means the Real McCoy, an authentic item from the bygone era, whereas "retro" means a modern take on a bygone style. Alas, I rail to little effect. Popular usage trumps, and popular usage has the terms becoming more and more synonymous.

I used to not mind "vintage" but in recent years it's come to be one of those words that sets my teeth on edge -- it and "retro" are both just marketing buzzwords, and vintage has become the more annoying of the two. When I see stuff from the '90s being sold with a straight face as "vintage", then "vintage" has lost all meaning to me.

"Mid-century" to me means all that George Jetson space-age tailfin stuff. MAD MEN VLV ROCKABILLY POPULUXE et. al, although the reality of that period was a good deal more mundane. Most of the people I knew had cheap Sears and Roebuck furniture, and never heard of anybody called "Eeems."

I use the term "The Era" to refer to the 1933-45 period in general, but as far as material goods are concerned I simply say "my stuff" and "not my stuff." Since I neither "collect" nor sell, marketing is irrelevant.

 

[tonyb]

I read somewhere recently (but please don't ask me where; I stumble upon so much stuff these days that my feeble old brain can't begin to keep track of it all) that marketers find that the younger set responds much more favorably to "vintage" than "antique."

Goes some ways toward explaining why we see the term pop up so much, I suppose.

As to items from the 1990s being marketed as "vintage" ...

It's the same sort of hocus-pocus that turned used cars into pre-owned automobiles. An item of attire from the 1990s is just a used garment, in my book.

 

[Feraud]

The term "Heritage" makes me cringe. This term used with photos of too skinny guys wearing 2 day beards and overpriced head-to-to denim "workwear" inspired outfit gives me the runs. If any of the poster boys do work that required anything more than a laptop and a latte I'll gladly eat my hat.
Too many companies are trying to sell some vague idea of past without the quality of it.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^

You're singin' my song.

Mass-market blue jeans (as contrasted with those ridiculously priced ones from the specialty makers in Japan) have never been less expensive (in inflation-adjusted dollars), and they've never been cheaper. It's gotten to where I hang mine to dry so as to prolong their lives. Even with that, I get nowhere near the amount of wear out of them as I did the denim from 40-plus years ago. If I subjected these new versions to the treatment the old ones got, they wouldn't last a week.

 

[Atticus Finch]

What seperates "golden era" from "midcentury"?

Usually, rose-colored glasses.

AF

 

[tonyb]

Usually, rose-colored glasses.

AF

Often true, Atticus. As has been observed here in numerous other threads, modern takes on period styles -- whatever the period, whatever the style -- are rarely accurate replications. People furnished their homes with whatever they had -- some of it new, most of it not. Pieces got worn or shabby looking, or people just got tired of looking at them, and handed them off to someone else, perhaps the junk man.

Period photos of actual living spaces rarely resemble what you might see on the pages of Atomic Ranch or Modernism magazines. Indeed, the terms themselves -- "midcentury modern" and "golden era" are, like "art deco" and "film noir," coinages which entered the lexicon after the periods and styles to which they refer. What we get, with most modern takes on these styles, are highly romanticized and sanitized versions "inspired" by this or that bygone fashion.

 

[Matt Crunk]

When think of Mid Century, I always think of all the tacky Atomic inspired furniture from the 50s!

I dare say "tacky" is a very subjective term, and rather a matter of opinion and taste. We have furnished our current home in mostly mid-century modern, and don't find it the least bit tacky.

 

[rocketeer]

My pet hate is the use of Classic when used to describe old cars. What makes a car 'Classic'? usually the owner of the so called classic uses it because it makes it sound like it is worth more £££$$$ than it really is.
Forget car club evaluations for a minute, just what makes a car a classic? I go by the dictionary description Of "Enduring Style and Appeal"
What we really need to ask is:-
Is that car a Classic, or is it really just a nice old car

And Vintage cars are usually associated with vehicles from 1914- through to around 1930.

Another of my biggest hates is the use of the new term pre-owned to disguise the fact something is really just used or secondhand.
J

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't think of my car as "vintage" or "classic" or "antique" or "heritage" or any of the rest of that preening foolishness. It's a lumpy, slow, four-doored, fat-fendered, seventy-three-year-old used car. Seeing as I myself am lumpy, slow, four-doored, and fat-fendered, I have no problem with this at all.

 

[Matt Crunk]

LizzieMaine, you are very much a classic.