I think it’s simply because you don’t see those old styles around anymore that make them seem … so ridiculous. Like flare bell bottoms: they were in, then went out, then came back – looking kinda ridiculous until… you saw them enough.
Tight shirts, tight jeans, tight b-ball shorts, etc. VW bugs were lookin kinda funny there for a while – until they came back.
The more I see something, the more mainstream it becomes in my mind’s eye… it might be as ridiculous as ever, but seeing it so much… I just look past it.
Actually, I think this works both ways. I remember twenty years ago when I was a teenager, and seeing pictures of futuristic concept cars that were all swoopy and aerodynamic and looked like bubbles on wheels, and thinking, “Well *that *looks stupid.” But twenty years later, that’s pretty much what we’ve got, and it seems perfectly normal.
In the early thirties (1934) the Air Flow Chrystler was so far ahead of it’s time (modern) that sales were virtually nonexistend.
It was taken off the market and the design ideas gradually incorporated into the designs of the following years.
Was the answer to the question, “Ginger or Mary Ann?” the same when Gilligan’s Island was in first run as it is now? Or did the guys all prefer Ginger? I look at Ginger and say, “Eeewwww…”
I think teenage girl style now looks a lot better than the teenage girl style when I was a teenager. I’ve been known to quietly scoff at women slightly older than myself who are still running around with Farrah Fawcett hairstyles. Or men slightly older than my father who are still doing that Bryl-Creem thing
I get an enormous laugh out of seeing grown men wearing huge baggy shorts that come down to mid calf. And the crooked ball cap is the icing. I would love to see the look on their faces when they see pictures of themselves in about 15 years. “What was I thinking???”
Believe it or not, Airflows are still not in great demand compared to other vintage cars of that era. Anyway, they seem reasonably priced vs. say, a '32 Ford V-8.
The men shown in those photos, mostly wearing suits, don’t look that different than what you might see today. The ties are narrow, but otherwise they could step into 2005 and not really stand out. Note the lack of hats!
All the women, though, look absolutely frumpy as hell. Drop them into 2005, and many will be seen as wearing “old lady clothes.”
The lack of hats is not so remarkable to us today as the presence of any hats. I’ve heard it said it was JFK who popularized bareheadedness for businessmen. Look at a picture from 1957 or 1952 and you’d see quite a few more hats. And as for the narrow ties, note that the collars, lapels, pant legs, and most of all the accepted color palette, are also narrow.
Finally, although it’s the sixties, it’s not yet The Sixties. Everybody is dressed relatively formally –no jeans, no sneakers, no wild hair, no message-bearing clothing.
I dunno. There’s a sleeveless shift or two that could pass today. But for the most part you’re right – harlequin glasses, spiky heels, and hairspray. And hairspray…!
Have you noticed that we’re going back to hats? Between ball caps, skull caps, and toques, we’re all starting to put things on our heads again. Or maybe there never was a time where we stopped wearing caps - they just keep changing.
