Is 2012 culture much different from 1992 culture?

[CJJ*]

This essay (http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201) by Kurt Andersen in the latest issue of Vanity Fair IMO makes a compelling case that culture--when compared to previous 20-year increments, at least in the US--seems to have stagnated. Obviously there have been technological and scientific leaps over the past two decades,and certainly one can argue that there have been political transformations. But when you look at the artifacts of our culture, very little have changed:
Rewind any other 20-year chunk of 20th-century time. There’s no chance you would mistake a photograph or movie of Americans or an American city from 1972—giant sideburns, collars, and bell-bottoms, leisure suits and cigarettes, AMC Javelins and Matadors and Gremlins alongside Dodge Demons, Swingers, Plymouth Dusters, and Scamps—with images from 1992. Time-travel back another 20 years, before rock ’n’ roll and the Pill and Vietnam, when both sexes wore hats and cars were big and bulbous with late-moderne fenders and fins—again, unmistakably different, 1952 from 1972. You can keep doing it and see that the characteristic surfaces and sounds of each historical moment are absolutely distinct from those of 20 years earlier or later...
He continues with examples from architecture, film style, music, and books, then:
Now try to spot the big, obvious, defining differences between 2012 and 1992. Movies and literature and music have never changed less over a 20-year period. Lady Gaga has replaced Madonna, Adele has replaced Mariah Carey—both distinctions without a real difference—and Jay-Z and Wilco are still Jay-Z and Wilco. Except for certain details (no Google searches, no e-mail, no cell phones), ambitious fiction from 20 years ago (Doug Coupland’s Generation X, Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash, Martin Amis’s Time’s Arrow) is in no way dated, and the sensibility and style of Joan Didion’s books from even 20 years before that seem plausibly circa-2012...
The article really marshals the details, and is well worth a read. My question to the board is, do you agree, and if so why do you think the stagnation occurs. IMO the article is fairly weak on the last point (throws up a bunch of possible causes, but none of them are firmly persuasive).

[ultrafilter]

Back in 1992 there was no way for niche performers to reliably reach their audiences, and now there is. The cultures may look similar if you just look at the most popular things, but as soon as you start to expand your view a little, you see radical differences.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Paranoia is King, now, not Elvis nor Michael.

[RealityChuck]

Well, you can always pick and choose your examples, but the author is on the right track. Popular music is the same as it was 20 years ago, just with different acts. Movies are dominated by the same "blockbuster adventure" mode started by Jaws.

My take on the cause: cost. The price of everything has gone up. Movie ticket prices have far outpaced inflation (from an average price of $4.15 in 1992 to an average of $7.89 in 2010). The same for prices across the board on most other types of art.

The one exception is music, where you can download an album for less than a CD at the time, but the cost of an album of music on iTunes is far more expensive than file sharing, so the low price still looks high.

The result is that, as people pay more for their art, they stick to the tried-and-true. For $4.15 in 1992 (the equivalent of $6.37 today), you might take a chance on a film, but when it's an extra dollar and a half* (plus inflation on the cost of popcorn, drinks, and gas), you don't want to take a chance.

While there are niche performers, there are far fewer than in the 90s, they are much harder to find (even with the Internet), and fewer of them have a chance to make any money at it.

I saw the issue occur on Broadway 30 years ago. Back in the 50s, a play could have mixed reviews and still limp along, as people would give it a shot. But as ticket prices rose, it became either smash or flop, with nothing in between.

At the same time, as the cost of making art increases, then you become wedded to the blockbuster mode. When you're investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a film, you don't want to take any risks. So you go with genres that are sure things (there's also the fact that even flop action films do well overseas).

Ultimately, the more you have to pay to see a movie, or go to a concert, or see a show, the less likely you are to take a chance. Thus people stick with what they know, and those who are outside the mainstream have a hard time breaking through.

*Also, people judge the cost of art as an absolute number. Even though $16 for a hardcover book in 1993 was not considered an unreasonable price, $25 for one today seems expensive, even though inflation makes the two amounts equivalent.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, technology does have an effect. (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3052195/24-the-unaired-1994-pilot)

[Alessan]

Culturally speaking, how different was 1750 from 1770? 1870 from 1890?

What I mean is that maybe the rapid cultural acceleration of the 20th Century was an aberration, and we've now returned to the normal rate of gradual cultural change humanity has always exhibited. It seems strange to us because we're used to it, but actually, it's the way things are supposed to happen.

[An Gadaí]

Ah there are loads of differences between then and now, in style as with everything else. I think part of it is that the generation who came up and were most intimate with the early '90s haven't shoved it down everyone else's throats as some golden age (yet).

[Acsenray]

Ah there are loads of differences between then and now, in style as with everything else. I think part of it is that the generation who came up and were most intimate with the early '90s haven't shoved it down everyone else's throats as some golden age (yet).

The Dream of the '90s is Alive in Portland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVmq9dq6Nsg).

[An Gadaí]

The Dream of the '90s is Alive in Portland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVmq9dq6Nsg).

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country". However I saw that video recently anyway I think.

[DrFidelius]

I became a parent in the early '90s, and so I have not paid any attention to popular culture in twenty-some-odd years. As both girls are now away at college I may have a chance to see what is going on in the entertainment world again, and wil return with a report in about six months or so.

[Justin_Bailey]

I think Andersen makes some good points, but he also cherrypicks a lot of his "proof." Saying Lady Gaga is the new Madonna is a bit of a cheat seeing as how Madonna made her debut in 1982. The Adele example is even worse as torch singers have been around since the 1920s.

However, I also think a lot of 90s era culture has been absorbed into the mainstream as some kind of "modern era" and in the 20 years since, it has become very resistant to change. But all the underlying details (especially computer-related stuff) has changed so much that it's wrong to say 1992 is just like 2012.

[Spoke]

I'd say the ubiquity of computers and cell phones/smart phones is a pretty significant difference from 1992. So much so that a lot of thriller movies from that era feel dated because a simple cell phone would have solved whatever problem our protagonist was facing.

[Spoke]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

[An Gadaí]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Yeah but loads of them are into dubstep too. So there's that.

[jz78817]

just like nobody thinks they have an accent, no person is a good judge of the culture in which they spend much of their existence.

[Simplicio]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Eh, my parents used to say the same thing back when I was a teen in the 90's. I don't think kids liking music from the last generation is really particular to the present. Kids today and kids then don't just listen to old music though.

So much so that a lot of thriller movies from that era feel dated because a simple cell phone would have solved whatever problem our protagonist was facing.

I watched the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series for the first time a few months ago. The shows original run strattled the time period when cel phones started to become ubiquitous, and it was kind of funny to watch the writers at first ignore them, and then have the characters constantly forget to take there's with them as they left for supposedly super-critical and dangerous missions, so that the other characters couldn't tell them whatever key plot-breaking fact they'd just learned.

[GreenElf]

On the surface, there's not much difference, but culture has changed a lot over the past twenty years.

[kenobi 65]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

A few months ago, I was having lunch at a local fast-food place, and saw a teenaged couple (probably around age 15)...she was wearing a Bob Marley t-shirt, and he was wearing a Led Zeppelin t-shirt. My first thought was, "cool, they're going old-school". Then, I thought about, if, as a 15-year-old (in 1980), I'd been wearing t-shirts for bands which were 30 years removed from their prime -- I would have been wearing shirts for Les Paul or Benny Goodman. :D

[An Gadaí]

A few months ago, I was having lunch at a local fast-food place, and saw a teenaged couple (probably around age 15)...she was wearing a Bob Marley t-shirt, and he was wearing a Led Zeppelin t-shirt. My first thought was, "cool, they're going old-school". Then, I thought about, if, as a 15-year-old (in 1980), I'd been wearing t-shirts for bands which were 30 years removed from their prime -- I would have been wearing shirts for Les Paul or Benny Goodman. :D

Back then though rockabilly and punk did borrow huge amounts from the sartorial culture of the '50s. I know a guy who runs a club night that is all music from prior to 1959. It's a huge success and you get people of all ages there, most of whom weren't around or were very young when the music he plays was in the hit parade.

[Spoke]

I sure miss flannel and Doc Martens, though.

[Yllaria]

I became a parent in the early '90s, and so I have not paid any attention to popular culture in twenty-some-odd years. As both girls are now away at college I may have a chance to see what is going on in the entertainment world again, and wil return with a report in about six months or so.

I salute you. Better you than me.

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Both this and any pop culture change slowdown might be because the pig in the python* has moved into late middle age. The ratio between the ages has shifted.

[Martian Bigfoot]

I watched the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series for the first time a few months ago. The shows original run strattled the time period when cel phones started to become ubiquitous, and it was kind of funny to watch the writers at first ignore them, and then have the characters constantly forget to take there's with them as they left for supposedly super-critical and dangerous missions, so that the other characters couldn't tell them whatever key plot-breaking fact they'd just learned.

I've linked to this before, but what the heck: No signal. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIZVcRccCx0&feature=player_embedded)

[An Gadaí]

I've linked to this before, but what the heck: You're making a modern movie, but you've got a pre-cell phone era plot? No worries, just use the "no signal" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIZVcRccCx0&feature=player_embedded) cop-out.

One of the guys is saying it to someone on the phone :confused:.

[kenobi 65]

Back then though rockabilly and punk did borrow huge amounts from the sartorial culture of the '50s. I know a guy who runs a club night that is all music from prior to 1959. It's a huge success and you get people of all ages there, most of whom weren't around or were very young when the music he plays was in the hit parade.

Even so, I suspect there's a big difference in American culture (certainly, there's an enormous difference in popular music) between 1950 and 1958.

[Simplicio]

Back then though rockabilly and punk did borrow huge amounts from the sartorial culture of the '50s. I know a guy who runs a club night that is all music from prior to 1959. It's a huge success and you get people of all ages there, most of whom weren't around or were very young when the music he plays was in the hit parade.

IIRC, the early 90's was when swing made a brief comeback. So in 1992 they were stretching back 60 years (!) in at least some cases.

I think different time periods just seem more distinct the further we get from them, because we remember less and less, and so certain "big things" seem more and more prominent, and the time-period gets sort of characterized in our heads. In twenty years, 2012 will seem distinctive in a way it doesn't now.

I've linked to this before, but what the heck: You're making a modern movie, but you've got a pre-cell phone era plot? No worries, just use the "no signal" cop-out.

I was going to mention this in my first post actually, but after watching Buffy I watched Angel, which started a few years later. There, the writers have the main character constantly losing cel-phone reception despite being in the middle of LA. So by that point they already seem to have discovered the "no-signal" dodge.

[Justin_Bailey]

I was going to mention this in my first post actually, but after watching Buffy I watched Angel, which started a few years later. There, the writers have the main character constantly losing cel-phone reception despite being in the middle of LA. So by that point they already seem to have discovered the "no-signal" dodge.

To be fair, Angel spent the first few seasons trudging through sewers and searching abandoned warehouses A LOT.

[An Gadaí]

IIRC, the early 90's was when swing made a brief comeback. So in 1992 they were stretching back 60 years (!) in at least some cases.

I think different time periods just seem more distinct the further we get from them, because we remember less and less, and so certain "big things" seem more and more prominent, and the time-period gets sort of characterized in our heads. In twenty years, 2012 will seem distinctive in a way it doesn't now.


I think the author of the article needs to look at more photos from 1992. There are many differences in youth culture between then and now, and numerous styles have come into fashion and disappeared again. I do think a lot of youth culture is more deracinated now. I don't think it's quite as tribal as it was when I was growing up. But that's a sign of a big difference rather than things having stagnated in the last 20 years. Off the top of my head, as well as the technology that author acknowledged there have been the popularity of various forms of electronic music (I know electronic music predates 1992 but various genres have come to the fore), Japanese culture in general, high quality/budget cartoons, the rise and fall of nu-metal, the dissolution of the notion of cult in movies or tv shows, the rise and fall of Britpop, club culture, and there are plenty of others.

Especially from an Irish perspective a lot has changed in 20 years. Arguably there's been as much social change in Irish society since 1992 as there was in the US between 1950 and 1970.

[Mahaloth]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

It is weird. I had Alice in Chains on the other day at school(I teach) and some kids recognized it and were into it.

[CJJ*]

Rather than specific elements of pop culture (e.g. whether a mystery plot could be easily resolved with a cell phone), IMO Andersen is really talking about a general sense of style rather than the very specific traits of pop culture. Yes, a mystery that assumes the non-ubiquitous existence of cell-phones can be clearly dated to the early-'90s, but as Martian Bigfoot note, this is far-too-often patched by current writers with the "No Service" trope. So although the reason for the lack of technology is new, the underlying plot & style elements didn't change much.

A point he makes about old photos is a good example of what he means:
Not long ago in the newspaper, I came across an archival photograph of Ian Schrager and Steve Rubell with a dozen of their young staff at Morgans, the Ur-boutique hotel, in 1985. It was an epiphany. Schrager’s dress shirt had no collar and some of the hair on his male employees was a bit unfashionably fluffy, but no one in the picture looks obviously, laughably dated by today’s standards. If you passed someone who looked like any of them, you wouldn’t think twice. Yet if, in 1990 or 1980 or 1970, you’d examined a comparable picture from 27 years earlier—from 1963 and 1953 and 1943, respectively—it would be a glimpse back into an unmistakably different world. A man or woman on the street in any year in the 20th century groomed and dressed in the manner of someone from 27 years earlier would look like a time traveler, an actor in costume, a freak.
This seems 100% correct to me. When I react to, say, photos of older relatives from the 50's or 60's, it's more than the fact they they look so much younger: The stylized poses, the clothes, and the cars all look of a particular age. Whereas if I look at photos of people from the early 90's, it's usually all about how much younger they look. If I didn't know the particular person in the photo, I could be convinced in many cases that they were taken very recently.

And although I said I found the possible causes for this phenomenon to be less than persuasive, one did strike a chord with me--if only because it gels with my sense of the over-commodification of culture:
(L)ike any lucrative capitalist sector, our massively scaled-up new style industry naturally seeks stability and predictability. Rapid and radical shifts in taste make it more expensive to do business and can even threaten the existence of an enterprise. One reason automobile styling has changed so little these last two decades is because the industry has been struggling to survive, which made the perpetual big annual styling changes of the Golden Age a reducible business expense. Today, Starbucks doesn’t want to have to renovate its thousands of stores every few years. If blue jeans became unfashionable tomorrow, Old Navy would be in trouble. And so on. Capitalism may depend on perpetual creative destruction, but the last thing anybody wants is their business to be the one creatively destroyed. Now that multi-billion-dollar enterprises have become style businesses and style businesses have become multi-billion-dollar enterprises, a massive damper has been placed on the general impetus for innovation and change.

[JohnT]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Why? Is there any rule stating kids must like different music as their parents?

[kenobi 65]

Why? Is there any rule stating kids must like different music as their parents?

It certainly makes it more difficult for parents to say things like:

"Turn that damned music down!"
"You call that noise music??"
"Today's music is corrupting our children!"

;)

[Justin_Bailey]

A point he makes about old photos is a good example of what he means:

Not long ago in the newspaper, I came across an archival photograph of Ian Schrager and Steve Rubell with a dozen of their young staff at Morgans, the Ur-boutique hotel, in 1985. It was an epiphany. Schrager’s dress shirt had no collar and some of the hair on his male employees was a bit unfashionably fluffy, but no one in the picture looks obviously, laughably dated by today’s standards. If you passed someone who looked like any of them, you wouldn’t think twice.

This is the picture the author is referring to: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/08/19/business/19ianCA02ready.html

Aside from the quality of the picture, it's a bunch of young adults in the quasi-dress clothes that have been the uniform of service workers for decades. I'm sure you can find similar photos depicted hotel/restaurant staff back to the 1930s.

[NDP]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.

Maybe, but that's because there's less of a "generation gap" attitude among kids and their parents regarding music. [GEEZER MODE] When I was growing up, no teen would ever willingly listen to anything their parents listened to. Your music was absolutely critical to establishing a separate identity from your elders. You had your own (cool) music and it was for you only. They had their (lame) music and it was for them only. Case closed. If your parents or somebody in their age group mentioned they "kind of liked" the same song you did, that was enough to banish the song--and perhaps even the artist--from your record collection.[/GEEZER MODE] Now, there's less friction between the generations and less difference between them in their music. Also, the fact that over 100 years of recorded music is now available on-line has something to do with it. Kids are less likely to listen to music with generational ear-blocks.

[Freddy the Pig]

I just had similar thoughts while watching a Seinfeld rerun from the early 1990's. Yes, the men's hair was a little longer than it would be today, and yes, electronic devices were less ubiquitous. But for the most part, if I hadn't known, I might have thought that the show was produced last week.

I didn't have the same feeling watching All in the Family in 1992, or Father Knows Best in 1972. I remember because I did watch those shows in those years.

[Prox]

Throwing out technology is cherry picking too much, IMO. And I'm not just talking about cell phones on TV shoes. An enormous chunk of culture originates on the Internet these days. Trends start there. Many of them die, but many of them also grow and become a big part of mainstream culture. It's may not but high culture in any way, but things like Rebecca Black & Shit my Dad Says have a clear impact on the larger culture, and they would've never, ever happened in 1992.

And I'm no fashion maven or anything, but there's a pretty big difference between today's hipster skinny jeans & the Ninety's hip hop baggy jeans. Saying fashion hasn't changed much is just focusing too much on the coincidence that flannel was popular in the early 90s and right now. I don't remember anyone wearing it in the late 90s or early 00s

Really, why I think this comes down to is that culture is much more fragmented now then it was in 1992, and aging boomers are free to pick the fragments that they like (i.e., similar to 20 years ago) and ignore stuff they don't

[ralph124c]

I don't know-people still eat, drink, buy clothes, and compete with eachother for "status". It is amazing that people in 1912 had much of the stuff we have today-although our technology is immeasurably superior.
In some ways, 1912 culture was better-they didn't have Kim Kardashian, Lady Gaga, or Oprah.
In this regard (the attention whores who become cultural icons), we seem to be moving backwards.

[TBG]

And I'm no fashion maven or anything, but there's a pretty big difference between today's hipster skinny jeans & the Ninety's hip hop baggy jeans. Saying fashion hasn't changed much is just focusing too much on the coincidence that flannel was popular in the early 90s and right now. I don't remember anyone wearing it in the late 90s or early 00s

Women's pants/shorts/etc changed a whole lot too. Looking back at things from the early 90's which were considered skimpy at the time look like they're from the "mom jeans" school of fashion now.

[fiddlesticks]

I grew up (and became of age in 1992) in Wisconsin so the weather wasn't necessarily conducive for tank tops, but they certainly weren't the default summer-time outfit for young women in those days. Visible bra straps? I seem to remember them as a fashion faux pas at the time. I'm quite certain if a girl had shown up at school in a tank top with her bra straps visible in May of 1992 she would have been sent to the office and asked to go home and change or find a sweatshirt to wear the rest of the day.

[Jophiel]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.
I blame the Guitar Hero/Rock Band games.

[JohnT]

Blame the music. My daughter listens to pop music that isn't indistinguishable from what was played in 1997... or 1987... or 1977. Rock music sounds the same as it did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Other than varying levels of talent, what's the difference between Nickleback and Bad Company? Lady Gaga and Madonna? Coldplay and ELO? Weird Al and... well, Weird Al? It sure isn't the vast difference that existed between Benny Goodman and Jim Morrison, or Frank Sinatra and John Lennon.

Even if it doesn't sound exactly the same, there's nothing in today's music that is radically different than what was done 30 years ago, though the methods may have changed.

IMHO, the idea that, musically, a generational split (of the sort that appeared between the post-WW2 generation and the pre-WW2 generation) is the norm probably isn't supported by the historical evidence.

[Martian Bigfoot]

Rock music sounds the same as it did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Other than varying levels of talent, what's the difference between Nickleback and Bad Company? Lady Gaga and Madonna? Coldplay and ELO? Weird Al and... well, Weird Al? It sure isn't the vast difference that existed between Benny Goodman and Jim Morrison, or Frank Sinatra and John Lennon.Yeah. With music, you can imagine having a '60s revival, a '70s revival, an '80s revival... but a '90s revival? You can't do a '90s revival, we're still in the '90s. Longest decade ever.

Edit: Not that I mind. The '90s are awesome, it would suck if they ended.

[Gagundathar]

We are seeing a homogenization of generations that hasn't happened since before the early 19th century.
It is, of course, driven by our music and art (and to a lesser extent our literature).
When I was growing up, in the middle of the 20th century, the only thing I heard was old school Country-Western on the radio and Erinco Caruso on the Victrola. Rock and Roll (where did the Roll go?) was such a departure from what was the status-quo that it marked a significant difference in the musical landscape. Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, they were so utterly different from Perry Como and Frank Sinatra that my parental-units had a VERY hard time accepting them.

I grew up in a musical family. My folks met each other in church choir and my brother and I grew up singing and being sung to. Music has always been important to me and it appears to me, in retrospect, that it was of paramount importance to my cohort. We were not just rebelling against the previous generation's music, but also their social values. Many of us felt we had a right to be different than our parents. Mind you, I know this is a common thing, but my generation had a new tool ... music.

But now, not so much. I enjoy some of the new music that comes out (as long as it doesn't... you know... uh suck), and I can listen to many of the songs that my grandchildren listen to and actually enjoy them. This bridges a great deal of our popular cultural heritages and diminishes what we used to call the 'generation gap'.

It is not as if I am going to go to a rave soon, but I have a resonance with my progeny that my folks did not with me and I think music is the binding force.

[gatorslap]

I don't think I agree at all.

Music? He cherry-picked a few superficial examples. Today's music bears little resemblance to 1992. Grunge is dead, and is any kind of rock popular anymore? Long gone are the days of Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Euro-house is dead, and what passes for dance music is either underground or from pop stars (Lady Gaga, Rihanna, etc.) Long gone are the days of C+C Music Factory and Snap!. Rap/hip-hop is nothing like it was back then either.

Fashion? I can't remember the last time I saw a dude with long hair and a flannel shirt. Or a high-top fade and pan-African clothing.

[monstro]

I don't know about the picture thing. You can find plenty of pictures--like your from someone's old high school yearbook--where people definitely look different from folks of today. And I would say 1985 is a perfect example of this. Everyone looked goofy in 1985. Big feathery hair. Jheri curls and Stevie Wonder braids. Clothes were crazy-looking too. I don't like the baggy pants look, but guys sure did like tight pants back in those days. And daisy dukes on the basketball court, too.

Though I do agree that 90s fashion does not differ as dramatically from today's stuff as it does from 1980s fashion. But you have to exclude the early 1990s from that analysis. Early 1990s was kind of weird. (That whole New Jack period was weird. Imagine guys today doing the Kid n Play together on the dance floor. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.)

[dropzone]

The Dream of the '90s is Alive in Portland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVmq9dq6Nsg).Hot girls wear glasses? Jim Rose? Awesome!

[obfusciatrist]

I would also wonder how much of it is that the cultural change has moved into the virtual realm, where it can't be seen so much in physical artifacts. That people are putting their creative energies into a new realm and leaving the older modes more or less in place while doing it.

And combine that with instant global distribution and amazingly cheap manufacturing costs for mass market goods and more than ever before you can create yourself not by being new but by combining the old in new ways, picking and choosing existing artifacts so that at the macro level they don't look new but at the micro level are distinct in important ways.

While the 15 year old of today may consume a lot of things that seem very familiar to the 15-year-old me in 1990, I'm guessing they spot me as a poser in a heartbeat if somehow that me came forward into the present.

[Dewey Finn]

I think the critical difference is that in 1992, Spy magazine was still around to satirize the culture, but it's not now.

[Sam Lowry]

Blame the music. My daughter listens to pop music that isn't indistinguishable from what was played in 1997... or 1987... or 1977. Rock music sounds the same as it did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Other than varying levels of talent, what's the difference between Nickleback and Bad Company? Lady Gaga and Madonna? Coldplay and ELO? Weird Al and... well, Weird Al? It sure isn't the vast difference that existed between Benny Goodman and Jim Morrison, or Frank Sinatra and John Lennon.

Even if it doesn't sound exactly the same, there's nothing in today's music that is radically different than what was done 30 years ago, though the methods may have changed.

IMHO, the idea that, musically, a generational split (of the sort that appeared between the post-WW2 generation and the pre-WW2 generation) is the norm probably isn't supported by the historical evidence.

Out of curiosity, I looked up what the Billboard top 10 for this week (http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/charts/hot-100) and for 20 years ago (http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/charts/hot-100?chartDate=1992-01-25). I found it interesting to compare them.

[GreenElf]

I just had similar thoughts while watching a Seinfeld rerun from the early 1990's. Yes, the men's hair was a little longer than it would be today, and yes, electronic devices were less ubiquitous. But for the most part, if I hadn't known, I might have thought that the show was produced last week.

I didn't have the same feeling watching All in the Family in 1992, or Father Knows Best in 1972. I remember because I did watch those shows in those years.

A lot of early to mid 90s pop culture has become dated and subject to ridicule. Youth laugh at 90s video game music having that "Seinfeld" sound. Many youths won't be caught dead in a pair of blue jeans. 90s jargon such as "dude" is nearly as outdated as "far out" or "groovy".

Some 90s culture trends such as "indie music" are still here, similar to the decades-long popularity of ragtime music, but the novelty has been lost. Season 20 of the Simpsons just isn't as good as the first several seasons.

But culture isn't just pop culture, and culture in general has changed a lot. For one, it's become more homogenized. A lot of small towns don't have stores selling country western gear anymore, or people wearing cowboy hats. And society has changed due to most people going online and having cellphones. Provincial viewpoints are ridiculed in public forums, so there's more consensus and political correctness. If people don't know about something, they can quickly google it rather than ask a friend or use resources at the library. A lot of people get addicted to their computers, surfing websites such as Facebook, so they don't go out fishing on the weekends or other non-cyberspace activities. Or they arrange a date through Match.com rather than the local bar scene.

So the 90s arguably have more in common with the 80s than today if you look at the culture at large rather than hairstyles.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

I've often wondered why saggy pants are still popular with some teenagers - a fashion that was around more than twenty years is still considered current? I remember a colleague around 1991 complaining that his teenage son was wearing sagging pants).

I mean, long hair on males started showing up (in the rural town where I grew up) in the late 1960's, and by the early 1980's, was sufficiently passe that someone wrote on the wall in the hippie section of the student union, "It's 1983 - can't you afford a (bleep)ing haircut?"

One possibility is the shorter cultural memory resulting from technological changes like the 24-hour news cycle and internet everywhere. People who can't remember what it was like five years ago aren't going to know that their trendy fashion was around twenty years ago.

[Algorithm]

I don't agree at all, particularly when it comes to a very recognizable and penetrative aspect of culture - Television. Programs are vastly different now - reality shows, the popularity of crime-drama, mass-eschewing of the laugh track - shows from the 90's don't fit in at all today.

Even granting the main premise - that today's movies/fashion/music is largely similar to that of 1992 - it kind of ignores the fact that elements of culture are transmitted nowadays over an entirely new medium (the internet) - one that is continuously going through its own cultural evolution. Really, look at how websites have changed (http://www.youthedesigner.com/2009/09/23/10-major-technology-sites-then-and-now/) in the last decade (and even in the last couple years since that post was made). The differences are obvious and staggering. Web sites and their presentation represent culture in a huge way nowadays, when they weren't a factor at all 20 years ago. That's not the kind of change you can hand wave away.

[theR]

I've often wondered why saggy pants are still popular with some teenagers - a fashion that was around more than twenty years is still considered current? I remember a colleague around 1991 complaining that his teenage son was wearing sagging pants).

I mean, long hair on males started showing up (in the rural town where I grew up) in the late 1960's, and by the early 1980's, was sufficiently passe that someone wrote on the wall in the hippie section of the student union, "It's 1983 - can't you afford a (bleep)ing haircut?"

One possibility is the shorter cultural memory resulting from technological changes like the 24-hour news cycle and internet everywhere. People who can't remember what it was like five years ago aren't going to know that their trendy fashion was around twenty years ago.

Baggy jeans are a default these days, not a fashion.

Skinny jeans have been more of a fashion in recent years, and skinny jeans hanging low on the butt (like baggy jeans) are even more recent. Thanks, hipsters.

[BlinkingDuck]

Blame the music. My daughter listens to pop music that isn't indistinguishable from what was played in 1997... or 1987... or 1977. Rock music sounds the same as it did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Other than varying levels of talent, what's the difference between Nickleback and Bad Company? Lady Gaga and Madonna? Coldplay and ELO? Weird Al and... well, Weird Al? It sure isn't the vast difference that existed between Benny Goodman and Jim Morrison, or Frank Sinatra and John Lennon.

Even if it doesn't sound exactly the same, there's nothing in today's music that is radically different than what was done 30 years ago, though the methods may have changed.

IMHO, the idea that, musically, a generational split (of the sort that appeared between the post-WW2 generation and the pre-WW2 generation) is the norm probably isn't supported by the historical evidence.

My dad lamented once to me the fact that 'music passed him by'. He couldn't turn on the radio and hear music that he liked/grew up with. All he had was the old stuff and he craved something new in the music that he liked.

I always assumed the same would happen to me as I grew older but it never did. My kids like the music I listened to when I was their age and I tend to like much of what they listen to now. It is not uncommon for me to steal my daughters IPOD and listen for awhile.

As another poster said...it seems unnatural. However, I am glad it is.

[Hermitian]

There was a previous thread on the SD about this. It was based around the movie "Back to the Future."

The idea was that 1955 was WAY farther away from 1985 than 1985 is to 2015.

I agree. Without cellphones, I would have a hard time telling if a quick street photograph was from 1995 or 2010.

[Hermitian]

Found it: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13354641

[Chopper9760]

It was an interesting article but hand-waving the tech advances is simply ludicrous. Cell phones look way different and are everywhere, earbuds and bluetooth sets adorn many ears.

Fashion is different too, brands like The North Face and Patagonia have gotten insanely popular just like those Ugg boots. We had a whole thread about how those things are essentially the college uniform these days.

What about early 90's fashion? Garth Brooks was popular in some circles and I remember seeing those stupid color block button downs a lot. Not to mention BUM Equipment and all those stupid color-change shirts.

Reusable grocery bags are WAY more popular, I see a few every time I go shopping. Carrying water has gotten surprisingly common considering the amount of money our government spends to keep tap water potable. Lots of folks tote some sort of plastic water bottle/Nalgene/Camelbak bottle.

I was born in 1985 and playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which is set in 1992, manages to make me very nostalgic. That game does a good job of capturing and mocking some of the significant changes since the 90's.

Even the example pic trotted out in the article does a poor job supporting the author's claims. That photo looks horribly dated, not only the fashion and hair but the picture quality. Movies that kicked ass in the early 90's like Terminator 2 look extremely dated by today's standards.

It's a good article and a fun topic but I think the author does a better job making himself sound old than making his point.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Complete hogwash.

Other than the "small" matter of the explosive growth in technology and the internet, here are a few other things that have crossed my mind.

In 1992, I doubt many would have supposed that gathering threats of domestic terrorism (OKC in 1995) and foreign terrorism (WTC in 2001). Few could argue that these had only neglible effects on American culture.

In 1992, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney told us "while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

By 2012, we now know he didn't mean it.

As late as 1997, five years after our cut-off, ABC felt the need to put a parental advisory on the episode of the Ellen show where the title character merely uttered the phrase "I'm gay." By 2012, we have gay marriage or civil unions in a growing number of states, the repeal of DADT, and overall, a far more open and accepting society.

In 1992, Bill Clinton was our "first black president," (recall, this remark was made by one despairing that the United States would ever see a black president). By 2012, Barack Obama became our second.

[Acsenray]

To be fair, I think the article linked in the OP is looking at the fashion and creative aspect of culture -- haircuts, clothing styles, music, etc.

[Simplicio]

As late as 1997, five years after our cut-off, ABC felt the need to put a parental advisory on the episode of the Ellen show where the title character merely uttered the phrase "I'm gay." By 2012, we have gay marriage or civil unions in a growing number of states, the repeal of DADT, and overall, a far more open and accepting society.

I think this is a biggie. While there were gay TV characters and gay celebrities and such in the early nineties, I think gay couples and gay lifestyles have become far more normalized and accepted over the last twenty years.

As far as substantial cultural changes go, as opposed to things like clothing styles and what music people listen to, I think thats been the most major one to take place over my lifetime.

[Martian Bigfoot]

Smoking has pretty much disappeared, of course, and fitness and health issues are becoming part of everyday culture in a big way. When I was a teenager in the mid-nineties, I was smoking a pack a day, drinking like a Irishman and apparently trying to kill myself. If you weren't into sports, taking care of your body wasn't an issue, at least not for me or for anyone I knew. Today, gyms are popping up everywhere, the streets are full of joggers, and as far as I can tell, the kids are all into yoga instead of substance abuse.

Although, of course, paradoxically, there's also an obesity epidemic going on at the same time.

[Justin_Bailey]

To be fair, I think the article linked in the OP is looking at the fashion and creative aspect of culture -- haircuts, clothing styles, music, etc.

But just as the author cherrypicks examples to fit his theory, it's possible to cherrypick in the opposite direction too.

Look at the leather jacket. Derided as something "hoods" and "greasers" wore in the 50s, by the 60s and 70s, it was a standard part of most men's wardrobes. That has continued for 40 years.

[Quimby]

I think it is an overstatement that nothing has changed in the last 20 years but I do agree that change seems to have slowed down. i think that is because of the ubiquitousness of video and the internet nothing ever has to go away. I can't miss the great shows of the 90s because they are still on every day. The songs are still on the radio.

New culture just ends up building on what came before instead of replacing it so nothing seems so different.

[Chopper9760]

I find it hard to put into words but sitcoms like Friends, Seinfeld, Mad About You - they all look extremely dated when I see them channel surfing.

There's definitely been an appreciable change in fashion & hairstyles but, to the author's credit, I can't articulate these changes beyond a vague sense that people in sitcoms from the 90's look funny.

[Ellis Aponte Jr.]

It is not as if I am going to go to a rave soon

If you are, you're definitely stuck in 1992!

Regarding the article, British writer Simon Reynolds made many of the same points in his book Retromania, published last year.

[obfusciatrist]

I find it hard to put into words but sitcoms like Friends, Seinfeld, Mad About You - they all look extremely dated when I see them channel surfing.

Part of this, for me anyway, is how quickly widescreen TV has become the norm. Really old shows it doesn't bother me but stuff from the decade before the changeover just looks too current to be in that little square (or worse, stretched to fit the full screen).

That's how the world has changed. A 26" TV isn't on the larger side any more.

[Beware of Doug]

There are fewer places outside of the workplace where you can feel comfortable "dressing up."

[Acsenray]

But just as the author cherrypicks examples to fit his theory, it's possible to cherrypick in the opposite direction too.

Cherrypicking is one thing, but saying that the mood of the country has changed because of 9/11 seems to be addressing a completely different issue.

[Voyager]

I grew up (and became of age in 1992) in Wisconsin so the weather wasn't necessarily conducive for tank tops, but they certainly weren't the default summer-time outfit for young women in those days. Visible bra straps? I seem to remember them as a fashion faux pas at the time. I'm quite certain if a girl had shown up at school in a tank top with her bra straps visible in May of 1992 she would have been sent to the office and asked to go home and change or find a sweatshirt to wear the rest of the day.
So? In 1974 halter tops, which show a lot more skin than tank tops, were pretty common in Urbana, Illinois at least. I'd say clothing is more conservative now than it was then.

In general, some things, like clothes, cycle and some things, like technology, progress steadily. It seems silly to assign an interval that means anything. My kids listened to the Beatles, but my mother liked Benny Goodman, and I still play the Carnegie Hall CD. Weird Al is Spike Jones with music videos. Frank Sinatra covered Something and said it was one of the best love songs ever, so I'm not sure he'd agree he was that different from John Lennon. The bobby-soxers reaction to him wasn't that far off the reaction to the 1964 Beatles.
The internet changed everything, but so did television, the automobile, and the telephone. It might be accelerating a bit, but I wrote a (bad) story on the acceleration of technology for a high school magazine in 1968. Everything is new, but nothing is really new.

[Ximenean]

I think it's not so much that the pace of culturual/societal change has slowed down, but that it has diversified, so that there are no longer obvious identifiers of a particular time, in the way that, for example, bell bottoms and huge collars are immediately identified with the early seventies. If you look back at media of that time, it's surprising how uniform fashion was. Everybody was doing the flared trousers/big collar thing, even newsreaders.

I'd guess it is down to increasing prosperity, greater consumer choice, and increased levels of communication.

[grude]

Everything is new, but nothing is really new.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.


Indeed :p

[Indistinguishable]

Is the argument just that "The way people dress hasn't changed radically"?

[Two Dollar Tallboy]

One thing I don't think anyone has touched on is how common place porn has become. Growing up in the 90s your options for porn was pretty much limited to adult bookstores and convienence stores. It still had that taboo with it too. Now something as simple as an internet search can yield countless porn sites as results simply because they share a word combination with what you were searching for and you hear stories about how people getting fired for emailing porn while at work. Or sitting down at a computer in a library and discovering that the previous user had been looking at whatever their particular kink is. Porn isn't really something thats kept behind close doors anymore.

[santosvega]

A lot of early to mid 90s pop culture has become dated and subject to ridicule. Youth laugh at 90s video game music having that "Seinfeld" sound. Many youths won't be caught dead in a pair of blue jeans. 90s jargon such as "dude" is nearly as outdated as "far out" or "groovy".

Crap. I have longish hair, wear blue jeans to the exclusion of all other trousers, and use the word "dude" more often than I probably notice. I also work alongside several kids in their early twenties. Now I'm gonna be paranoid that they're all laughing at me behind my back. Totally serious here.

[Indistinguishable]

Many youths won't be caught dead in a pair of blue jeans.
What age are these youths?

[Snowboarder Bo]

I've often wondered why saggy pants are still popular with some teenagers - a fashion that was around more than twenty years is still considered current? I remember a colleague around 1991 complaining that his teenage son was wearing sagging pants).
Back in the late '80s and thru the '90s, tho, the pants sagged because they were too big and they fell down. The trend now is skinny emo jeans that are too small in the waist for most guys to actually seat them properly on their hips; they can't even get them up over their skinny asses.

Here's my theory on why clothes and hairstyles and color schemes have remained mostly the same for the past 20-25 years: we already tried and discarded a bunch of styles that looked like shit and/or were a lot of work. What we're left with is the stuff that doesn't look completely ridiculous or crappy. Bell bottoms? Stupid. Pastels colors? Barf inducing. Huge wide collars? Dumb. Big padded shoulders? Dumber. Jeri-curl? Looks disgusting. Beehive hairdos? Look retarded and are difficult to maintain. Feathered hair? Looks kinda dumb on both guys and gals.

That's why jeans and t-shirts, which was a fairly new combo in the '50s and sported often by people of lower-middle to lower class background (i.e. people without a lot of money for slacks and sportcoats) are still around and now pretty much the default dress for Americans: they don't look ridiculous, are easy to match up color-wise, and are both reasonably devoid of stylistic elements that would clash.

Styles have settled into grooves that are easy to maintain, comfortable, and don't look generally freakish. It's like evolution in action for fashion.

[Indistinguishable]

They don't look ridiculous because we're used to them.

I have no doubt that, a hundred years in the future, people will think it ridiculously old-fashioned that we all went around in a uniform sea of blue jeans, broken only by the occasional khakis.

[Snowboarder Bo]

They don't look ridiculous because we're used to them.

I have no doubt that, a hundred years in the future, people will think it ridiculously old-fashioned that we all went around in a uniform sea of blue jeans, broken only by the occasional khakis.

I disagree. We're used to them because they didn't get discarded; they stuck around (in part) because they didn't look ridiculous when styles changed and in retrospect we realized that certain styles did look ridiculous. Parachute pants won't be making a comeback, nor will earth shoes, but jeans and sneakers are still common.

[Martian Bigfoot]

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today's teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain't right.Wouldn't it be an terrible waste of music, though, if it was supposed to last for just one generation?

[Indistinguishable]

I disagree. We're used to them because they didn't get discarded; they stuck around (in part) because they didn't look ridiculous when styles changed and in retrospect we realized that certain styles did look ridiculous. Parachute pants won't be making a comeback, nor will earth shoes, but jeans and sneakers are still common.
For the time being...

Hat wearing was de rigeur for how many decades among men before it stopped? Longer than jeans and sneakers have been fashionable.

People of a certain bent still wear ties, but it's not because they're objectively fashionable; they're just the result of the caprice of history, some Croatians in a war off in the 1600s, and the fashion will turn on those too, someday. They'll look so silly you would no more wear one than you'd wear a powdered wig.

You invoke "evolution", but the thing about evolution is that it never stops.

[GreenElf]

Remember in the early 90s when the family would gather around the table for a game of Pictionary?

http://nesguide.com/games/anticipation/

Hardly anyone does that anymore with all of the entertainment options from our computers and cellphones.

Also, eyeglasses have become less common due to surgical options and their lenses have been reduced in size.

[Indistinguishable]

To no one in particular:

If you want to demonstrate that the world of today looks different from the world of the early 90s, just peer through the window of any cafe. What you will see is an image no one would mistake for the early 90s. But, yes, this involves computers, which have been ruled out. If you rule out the most explosive change in people's lives and culture which occurred in the past twenty years, then, yes, the amount of change in the past twenty years does not seem very high.

[Balance]

The fundamental flaw here, I think, is that the author assumes that culture will not only change at the same rate, but in the same ways.

I contend that the way culture changes has changed, and it was brought about largely by the advent of the internet. For the last generation, we've had an ever-growing collective memory, and a rapidly accelerating ability to access it--and each other. "The Internet never forgets." Anyone connected to it can access things from decades ago as readily as the latest release. I believe that culture has become less cyclical as a result. Instead, it accretes, as people pick and choose the things that appeal to them from past and present and synthesize their own culture.

If you want to look at the changes, you have to look at things that didn't happen--and generally, couldn't have happened--twenty years ago. Flash mobs and Improv Everywhere. Omnipresent personal cameras and photo sharing/captioning. The Brony phenomenon. Child's Play. Kickstarter.

Andersen is looking in the wrong places for "new" culture. He's looking, for the most part, at products and cataloging superficial similarities. It's like looking at a 2012 car and saying, "It's still egg-shaped", without noticing that it has an electric motor instead of a gasoline engine.

[Indistinguishable]

Indeed. Just us talking here right now about this article is an amazing cultural change, a phenomenon which is alien to the world of 20 years ago.

[Lamia]

I grew up (and became of age in 1992) in Wisconsin so the weather wasn't necessarily conducive for tank tops, but they certainly weren't the default summer-time outfit for young women in those days. Visible bra straps? I seem to remember them as a fashion faux pas at the time. I'm quite certain if a girl had shown up at school in a tank top with her bra straps visible in May of 1992 she would have been sent to the office and asked to go home and change or find a sweatshirt to wear the rest of the day.I went to high school in Wisconsin (class of '99), and teenaged girls were wearing tank tops with visible bra straps (often in a contrasting color) then. Maybe they weren't in 1992, but they were by about five years later.

I've often wondered why saggy pants are still popular with some teenagers - a fashion that was around more than twenty years is still considered current? I remember a colleague around 1991 complaining that his teenage son was wearing sagging pants).This has been a mystery to me for years. Sagging pants were a dress code issue by the time I was in middle school -- 1992 -- and I wasn't exactly living in a fashion-forward metropolis. So this was a pretty mainstream youth trend 20 years ago, and has inexplicably never completely gone out.

[tomcar]

It's a Greatest Hits culture. We look back and pick those cultural things we like and use them. We are nostalgic for all the different periods so we dabble in them all.

[grude]

I contend that the way culture changes has changed, and it was brought about largely by the advent of the internet. For the last generation, we've had an ever-growing collective memory, and a rapidly accelerating ability to access it--and each other. "The Internet never forgets." Anyone connected to it can access things from decades ago as readily as the latest release. I believe that culture has become less cyclical as a result. Instead, it accretes, as people pick and choose the things that appeal to them from past and present and synthesize their own culture.
.

There might be some profound truth here^

I'm 28 years old and make full use of the internet for movies and music and yes I don't care about the age of things, I watch and listen to stuff of all ages. Hell when it comes to music I find my favorite period is right before my birth, the late 70s-early 80s post-punk and new wave explosion.

Most of the serious music fans and DJs my age and younger are the same, they use music blogs which post links to full albums in mp3 format. Its free so they explore freely in genres and time periods, there are also MASSIVE torrents for stuff like Rolling Stone's top 500 albums of all time, or Pitchfork's top 1000 albums of the 70s. Copyright infringement makes all this possible for better or worse.
In fact I have noticed that some artists who were very distinctive in style that had no copycats in their own time are being lifted from generously now, Brian Eno's sound circa Warm Jets is one I have thought about many times when listening to new music.

Same deal for movies, a lot of older people are disbelieving that I watch so many old films. They don't seem to get that its all the same to me, its just random selections from a giant library.

[shy guy]

I'd argue that culture has changed enormously just since 2005 or so, with the huge explosion of social networking and the proliferation of smartphones and similar devices. Watch any current TV and see how long you can make it without some reference to Facebook or Twitter, or an iPhone commercial.

Heck, a friend and I were just talking to each other about how weird it feels now that we used to have to make sure we were sitting in front of the TV when our favorite shows came on, since you never knew when you'd be able to catch a rerun. Now more often than not I have no clue when my favorite shows actually air; I have about half a dozen options for watching them whenever I want on any number of devices.

What about video games? In 1992 the Super Nintendo was in its infancy, and between that and PC games you had a gaming audience mostly of kids and adult nerds. In 2012, it is more likely than not that a person will carry a device in her pocket capable of graphics leagues beyond anything even arcades were offering in 1992, and try finding someone who hasn't played Angry Birds or Fruit Ninja.

And concentrating just on the way music sounds is being way too narrow. Think about the concept of an album in 1992, on CD or, more likely, cassette, vs. how we think of albums in 2012, when most listeners are going to cherry pick tracks on iTunes. What's more, iPods and smartphones give us access to our entire music collection no matter where we are.

And even talking about the way music sounds, the article makes the mistake I notice a lot of people make in assuming that "pop music" operates the same now as it did before the internet. It doesn't. Now that "indie" music is just as easy to come by as anything else, the reliance on the radio that used to exist for music enthusiasts just doesn't exist anymore. The music world is simply much less limited than it used to be, which means that niche acts have less incentive to make their work palatable to the mainstream, and pop radio becomes more bland as a result.

Aside from hand-waving away technology not being fair, I'd say that the fashion thing specifically is kind of misleading. We're right in the middle of a period where a lot of late 80's and early 90's fashions are back in style, so it isn't surprising that you can find older photos with clothes that don't look ridiculous in them. Compare today's fashions to a picture from, say, 1997, though, and the difference will likely be huge, because that's when a lot of 60's and 70's stuff was coming back around. Hell, Banana Republic does entire collections based on Mad Men, so you can probably find photos from the early 60's that look modern.

That applies to music, too, by the way. We've been seeing a lot of 80's and 90's dance revival stuff the past few years, so it isn't surprising it sounds familiar. But, again, compare today's radio to 1996 and there'd be a huge difference. Hip Hop sounds completely different, grunge is dead, and the more singer-songwriter-y stuff you'd see on MTV and VH1 in the 90's is now the kind of stuff that winds up on Pitchfork.

TL;DR: I reject the premise.

[straight man]

I disagree. We're used to them because they didn't get discarded; they stuck around (in part) because they didn't look ridiculous when styles changed and in retrospect we realized that certain styles did look ridiculous. Parachute pants won't be making a comeback, nor will earth shoes, but jeans and sneakers are still common.
I don't know about sneakers — or for that matter, the material of jeans (which is pretty useless for a lot of things, and around here plays second fiddle to things like khaki and what have you), but I do think the general shape of pants and the entirety of the t-shirt are going to last about as long as our current clothing technology does. There's just not much further to develop either of them — you can make them a tighter or looser fit, but that's about it.

[EvilTOJ]

To no one in particular:

If you want to demonstrate that the world of today looks different from the world of the early 90s, just peer through the window of any cafe. What you will see is an image no one would mistake for the early 90s. But, yes, this involves computers, which have been ruled out. If you rule out the most explosive change in people's lives and culture which occurred in the past twenty years, then, yes, the amount of change in the past twenty years does not seem very high.

This (http://i.imgur.com/c61pz.jpg) is what you would see, in case you're wondering.
Everyone's playing with their smartphone instead of talking to each other.

[jerseymule]

Smoking has pretty much disappeared, of course...
... and as far as I can tell, the kids are all into yoga instead of substance abuse.

I wish that this was true! There are still plenty of smokers and substance abusers in my world.

Although, of course, paradoxically, there's also an obesity epidemic going on at the same time.

There do seem to be a whole lot more really huge people walking around nowadays.

[Spoke]

Car culture is rapidly changing. In the future you will be able to date movies and pictures from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s by all the big hulking SUVs and monster trucks.

[Hermitian]

I think we are kind of talking past each other.

I like the Back to the Future example in that when Marty goes back to 1955, he feels that he has been dropped into another world. I don't think a 2015 movie could pull off that same sense of "other worldly" feel if they went back to 1985.

Think about when BTTF proposed 2015, they postulated flying cars, fusion, etc. They attempted to project 30 years based upon the advances of the last 30 years and they came to a place that is still far ahead of us.

[Justin_Bailey]

Think about when BTTF proposed 2015, they postulated flying cars, fusion, etc. They attempted to project 30 years based upon the advances of the last 30 years and they came to a place that is still far ahead of us.

They did no such thing. Zemeckis filled 2015 with all the crazy shit he hoped to see in 30 years. Not stuff he actually expected to see.

And again, a 2015 Marty McFly dropped in 1985 would have a rude awakening when his cell phone didn't work, his TV weighed 300 pounds, and the Internet as we know it was still a decade away from even beginning.

[Indistinguishable]

Think about when BTTF proposed 2015, they postulated flying cars, fusion, etc. They attempted to project 30 years based upon the advances of the last 30 years and they came to a place that is still far ahead of us.
They attempted to project 30 years based upon what would look cool in a movie. That's it.

ETA: Damn this flaky Internet! Beaten to the punch.

[Spoke]

And again, a 2015 Marty McFly dropped in 1985 would have a rude awakening when his cell phone didn't work, his TV weighed 300 pounds, and the Internet as we know it was still a decade away from even beginning.

Yes, imagine poor Marty confronted with a phone book, or forced to go to the library to obtain obscure information.

[Justin_Bailey]

Yes, imagine poor Marty confronted with a phone book, or forced to go to the library to obtain obscure information.

You make a lot of calls while running from Biff by shouting into your phone book?

And speaking as a librarian, the way we can find information in the Internet age is way, way, WAY different from finding it in the pre-Internet age.

[Voyager]

I think we are kind of talking past each other.

I like the Back to the Future example in that when Marty goes back to 1955, he feels that he has been dropped into another world. I don't think a 2015 movie could pull off that same sense of "other worldly" feel if they went back to 1985.

I don't know. In Life on Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars_%28TV_series%29) a man goes from 2005 or so to 1973. You can tell his feelings from the title of the series. If you went back to 1985, no cell phones worth speaking of, the normal person did not have access to the Internet and those of us who did couldn't shop on it, and you'd have to get used to a 1985 vintage PC probably running DOS.

[Spoke]

You make a lot of calls while running from Biff by shouting into your phone book?

And speaking as a librarian, the way we can find information in the Internet age is way, way, WAY different from finding it in the pre-Internet age.
Um...I was agreeing with you.

[Justin_Bailey]

Um...I was agreeing with you.

Sorry. My sarcasm meter must be calibrated to 1985.

[stegon66]

Back in 1992 you could actually maybe get a punk-ass teenager to give you their attention for a minute or so. Now with their cellphones welded to their hands you can't get jack from the little fuckers. Makes work ever so much fun.

[Justin_Bailey]

Back in 1992 you could actually maybe get a punk-ass teenager to give you their attention for a minute or so. Now with their cellphones welded to their hands you can't get jack from the little fuckers. Makes work ever so much fun.

You probably just work with the wrong teenagers.

[TBG]

I don't know. In Life on Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars_%28TV_series%29) a man goes from 2005 or so to 1973. You can tell his feelings from the title of the series. If you went back to 1985, no cell phones worth speaking of, the normal person did not have access to the Internet and those of us who did couldn't shop on it, and you'd have to get used to a 1985 vintage PC probably running DOS.

The followup, Ashes To Ashes, actually sends the lead character to the '80s, and yeah, the world was very much a different place 30 years ago.

[Gagundathar]

"Remember the good old 1980's?
When things were so uncomplicated?
I wish I could go back there again
And everything could be the same."

--- Ticket to the Moon, Jeff Lynne, ELO (from the album, Time)

[Martian Bigfoot]

Back in 1992 you could actually maybe get a punk-ass teenager to give you their attention for a minute or so. Now with their cellphones welded to their hands you can't get jack from the little fuckers. Makes work ever so much fun.That actually holds true even for some 30 year olds that I know.

[eman77]

Not sure if this has been posted: http://www.retronaut.co/2011/03/usa-shopping-malls-summer-1990/

That link is a time capsule and a large majority of people dress and look very differently than the people of today.

Incredible website by the way.

[Bosstone]

Not sure if this has been posted: http://www.retronaut.co/2011/03/usa-shopping-malls-summer-1990/

That link is a time capsule and a large majority of people dress and look very differently than the people of today.

Incredible website by the way.Yeah, they hadn't quite gotten out of the 80s by then. Man, look at all the big hair and pornstaches.

I suspect that in 20-30 years, the thing we'll be goggling at is all the shaved heads.

[Voyager]

Back in 1992 you could actually maybe get a punk-ass teenager to give you their attention for a minute or so. Now with their cellphones welded to their hands you can't get jack from the little fuckers. Makes work ever so much fun.

You couldn't get attention from us punk-ass teenagers in the 1960s, because we were too busy smoking LSD.

[GreenElf]

Not sure if this has been posted: http://www.retronaut.co/2011/03/usa-shopping-malls-summer-1990/

That link is a time capsule and a large majority of people dress and look very differently than the people of today.

Incredible website by the way.

Thanks for the link. Here's Bryant Gumbel saying "What is the internet anyway?" :
http://www.retronaut.co/2011/11/what-is-the-internet-anyway-nbc-today-january-1994/

[psychonaut]

Not sure if this has been posted: http://www.retronaut.co/2011/03/usa-shopping-malls-summer-1990/

That link is a time capsule and a large majority of people dress and look very differently than the people of today."A large majority"? It seems to me that this is an edited collection—that is, the photographer's goal was specifically to target people wearing highly fashionable clothing and hairstyles, or else they targetted everyone in the mall equally but the creator of the website selected a subset of photos which he felt highly contrasted with fashions of today. Sure, the majority of the primary subjects in these photos dress and look differently, but from this collection alone you can't extrapolate to say that the majority of all people in the mall, or in the 1990s, dressed so differently. Indeed, many of the people in the backgrounds of these shots wouldn't look at all out of place walking down the street today.

[jordanr2]

Not sure if this has been posted: http://www.retronaut.co/2011/03/usa-shopping-malls-summer-1990/

That link is a time capsule and a large majority of people dress and look very differently than the people of today.

Incredible website by the way.Thanks for posting this. The odd thing here is how different the ostensibly similar fashions look: the skinny jeans with mom-jeans waists, the puffy jackets that still don't look much like the ubiquitous North Face stuff of today, the t-shirts inexplicably tucked in.

[CJJ*]

"A large majority"? It seems to me that this is an edited collection—that is, the photographer's goal was specifically to target people wearing highly fashionable clothing and hairstyles, or else they targetted everyone in the mall equally but the creator of the website selected a subset of photos which he felt highly contrasted with fashions of today. Sure, the majority of the primary subjects in these photos dress and look differently, but from this collection alone you can't extrapolate to say that the majority of all people in the mall, or in the 1990s, dressed so differently. Indeed, many of the people in the backgrounds of these shots wouldn't look at all out of place walking down the street today.
I agree. Some of these are shots of clothes worn by store mannequins. There are two guys in tuxedos. And I'm sorry, but a guy wearing a midriff-cut Mickey Mouse T-shirt or one in a white T and overalls was as much of an anomaly at the mall in 1990 as he would be today.

This collection is roughly the 1990's equivalent of People of Walmart (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/).

[monstro]

I remember girls at my high school wearing tight-ass jeans like that. With the high-stop tennis shoes too. And that hair. I'm so glad I wasn't cool enough to try to do that with mine.

But that was definitely 80s spill-over. By the mid-1990s, we weren't looking like that. Which just goes to show how fast fashion can change. It is really hard to believe that the look in those pictures and the grunge/hippie chick aesthetic co-existed within five years of each other. Just look at Alanis Morissette's early career to see what I'm talking about.

[Hello Again]

But that was definitely 80s spill-over. By the mid-1990s, we weren't looking like that. Which just goes to show how fast fashion can change. It is really hard to believe that the look in those pictures and the grunge/hippie chick aesthetic co-existed within five years of each other. Just look at Alanis Morissette's early career to see what I'm talking about.

I agree. The 90s didn't even start until after the 1992 election. I don't agree that those 1990s photos are showing people on the cutting edge of fashion. If anything, they are behind the times, kind of mired in an 80s look. I googled around for some 1994 yearbook photos and in the midwest girls were still pegging their jeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_rolled_pants)! For realsies! And ALL the guys' shirts are tucked in, with belts, even tshirts. Hilarious.

[TBG]

That's called "pegging"? I had no idea there was a name for it. Now I know what to call that embarrassing thing I used to do in the late 80's early 90's. It wasn't just girls doing it, though, as I'm definitely not a girl.

[Hello Again]

That's called "pegging"? I had no idea there was a name for it. Now I know what to call that embarrassing thing I used to do in the late 80's early 90's. It wasn't just girls doing it, though, as I'm definitely not a girl.
Oh yes both girls and boys did it - the New Kids on the Block sometimes pegged their pants (http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/2500000/New-Kids-On-The-Block-the-90s-boy-bands-2565666-500-500.jpg) (I think that's Danny in the acid-washed, ripped, pegged jeans, no?) but as that pic shows, guy's styles were more varied. ALL the girls pegged their pants. Back in the day, I had a pair of pink with black splatters jeans. I wore them pegged, of course. They were sooooo cool. :p

[eman77]

"A large majority"? It seems to me that this is an edited collection—that is, the photographer's goal was specifically to target people wearing highly fashionable clothing and hairstyles, or else they targetted everyone in the mall equally but the creator of the website selected a subset of photos which he felt highly contrasted with fashions of today. Sure, the majority of the primary subjects in these photos dress and look differently, but from this collection alone you can't extrapolate to say that the majority of all people in the mall, or in the 1990s, dressed so differently. Indeed, many of the people in the backgrounds of these shots wouldn't look at all out of place walking down the street today.

I agree and disagree with you. I agree that the photographer (or the website) picked the conspicuous photos to display over boring ones. However, I disagree that the people in the background would easily fit in.

In the background I see women wearing large blazers, big hair, guys wearing "too short" shorts, and tight white jeans.

The only people you would see wearing the same clothes other people are wearing the background today are the elderly, white trash, and the stereotypical "People of Wal-Mart" (the same people who would have worn 1960's clothes in the 1980's).

You can clearly see that teens and young adults (the people you look to in order to examine the zeitgeist of an era) are on an entirely different wavelength than the people of today. This might not add to the 1992 argument, but I think someone with two eyes will observe that 1990 was a very long time ago culturally.

[eman77]

I agree. Some of these are shots of clothes worn by store mannequins. There are two guys in tuxedos. And I'm sorry, but a guy wearing a midriff-cut Mickey Mouse T-shirt or one in a white T and overalls was as much of an anomaly at the mall in 1990 as he would be today.

This collection is roughly the 1990's equivalent of People of Walmart (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/).

Look at the kids. Not the weirdos. You picked out a few photos and twisted it into nonsense.

Teens are well known for wearing what everybody else their age is wearing. The attractive girls have big hair and a very different fashion sense than the girls of today.

[psychonaut]

Teens are well known for wearing what everybody else their age is wearing.Teens are also well-known for wearing what nobody else their age, except for a tiny subculture of like-minded individuals, is wearing.

[cmyk]

The last generation born to the baby boomers (myself born in '73), grew up in a world transformed by counterculture. There's nothing particularly culturally shocking, now that my generation are the parents/adults.

What the fuck is going to surprise or shock me anymore? I grew up exposed to The Sex Pistols; Ministry; Guns N Roses; AC/DC; Metallica; NIN; Nirvana; Alice in Chains. I read Stephen King and my neighbor had a stack of Penthouses. I'd crack the fuck up to Eddie Murphy's Delerious and Raw; George Carlin; Ricard Pryor. I smoked a bit of weed, and partied at friend's houses. I played video games; had a Commodore and a Mac; got a GameBoy. We watched movies like Nightmare on Elmstreet; Animal House; The Breakfast Club; Fast Times at Ridgemont High; Se7en... etc.

I have far more in common with my kids, nieces and nephews than I do with my parent's generation. I have to keep reminding myself when I'm watching Tosh.0 with my 13 year old daughter that it's pretty inappropriate for her age—or at least it would've been when I was her age, because my parents found that stuff appalling. But the other side of me argues, "Shit, you'd watch stuff just as vulgar and irreverant when you were 13 and loved it."

My nephew just came out as gay last year at 16 years old. His grandmother is in denial, but our (and his) generation barely even flinched. In fact, it was pretty clear he was gay since he was years younger, so when he came out, I said to my wife, "It's about time!"

So I think the key is this: Sure there's cultural differences, but we who came of age in the 80s and 90s have far more in common, at the root, with today's teens/young adults than we did with our parents generation.

We've maxed out the culture shock.

[eman77]

Teens are also well-known for wearing what nobody else their age, except for a tiny subculture of like-minded individuals, is wearing.

Tiny subculture in their minds. Goth, emo, whatever have tremendously large followings. If a teen joins a certain group I can assure you most of them are wearing what their friends are wearing.

[Push You Down]

Teens are also well-known for wearing what nobody else their age, except for a tiny subculture of like-minded individuals, is wearing.

What?

Those pictures are pretty legit.

Every teenage girl in those photos look EXACTLY like my sister (who would have been 14-15 in 1990) did then.

[Miller]

"A large majority"? It seems to me that this is an edited collection—that is, the photographer's goal was specifically to target people wearing highly fashionable clothing and hairstyles, or else they targetted everyone in the mall equally but the creator of the website selected a subset of photos which he felt highly contrasted with fashions of today. Sure, the majority of the primary subjects in these photos dress and look differently, but from this collection alone you can't extrapolate to say that the majority of all people in the mall, or in the 1990s, dressed so differently. Indeed, many of the people in the backgrounds of these shots wouldn't look at all out of place walking down the street today.

You make a good point. On the other hand, did anyone else do a double take when they got to the first shot of people smoking in an indoor mall?