I asked one resident who was younger and remembered a lot more than the others I work with on occasion… He said the biggest thing was people dressed up more, even into the 50s… but more so in the late 40s.
That and music from any time later is “no good crap”.
All I’ve got so far… and I’m off this weekend so don’t know if this thread will last longer than that.
True. But not all stuff is created equal. As this thread demonstrates, the icons and styles of the late forties were not particularly distinctive and/or memorable.
See Girl From Mars, post #32 above.
Oh, and don’t forget that 1946 bombshell, the bikini!
I’m standing by what I’ve said. If a woman dresses like this, you think 1920s. If she dresses like this, you think 1960s. But is she’s dressed like this, you don’t automatically think 1940s. (In fact, when I was searching to find these images, I found more references to the “New Look” being a Fifties style rather than a Forties one.)
I think the point is that you’re using those numbers as if they mean something … like because a specific image isn’t conjured up by the arbitrary sequence “1940” that somehow that period of time is deficient compared to the others. That’s the fallacy. Life isn’t lived according to the numbers that flip by on the calendar and cultural icons are not really related to the numbers.
The '50s didn’t really end until the mid-'60s. The '60s didn’t end until 1974.
Maybe because that photo is from the 1950s.
I asked if the late forties had a distinctive image and I feel it’s clear they didn’t. But I never said or implied any deficiency from that. Maybe I admire the late forties for the stealthy way they slid through history without leaving a mark - they were ninja years.
And those damn kids didn’t use to run across my lawn!
In 1948, though it’s little known or cared about today, Esquire magazine and several men’s clothiers rolled out the Bold Look, very probably in response to the New Look.
