Why were olden times so aesthetic and coherently effay?

because they dressed for the purpose no matter how poor and impoverished they are

nowadays people dress to get a look which seems artificial and "tryhard"

I mean how did they have sex with those smelly people eww

Bitch every body is wearing polyester these days.
I'm guessing what you were trying today was "I know nothing about techniques or materials" but you're not self aware enough yet so you just assume everybody in history's just as ignorant as you

>muh unimaginative monochrome palette

These fits would look much better if we could see their faded blues, washed out reds, natural linen, wool, and leather colours, guaranteed.

Black and white is for the cowards and the bland

you're just romanticizing the past, people will do the same shit for our own generation one day

high test

People of all ages often seem to forget humans haven't changed that much in recent history and are shocked, inspired by and adhered to whatever was expected in their days... "Twerking is repulsive to old elitist conservatives, can you believe it?!" How do you think most people saw the Viennese waltz when it first came in to fashion - they thought women were WHORES for letting another man put their hands around their waste.. everything changes but nothing is new.
A grown man with a job would never have hope to be seen outside his residence without a tie and a jacket during the day; brown leather shoes were once considered OBSCENE outside a country house or a stable, baseball hat were laughable anywhere but on the diamond field.
Look at pictures of Italian immigrants arriving on Ellis island; to the establishment of the time, they looked exactly like those Syrian refugees marching on Europe: people simultaneously wondered how come they were so "cleanly dressed" for supposedly desperately needy people, but mostly, they thought they had the most vulgar and cheap taste in clothing.

Not even 30 years ago, nobody would expect anything but a street hooker to be wearing this , today it's kinda frowned upon, but def not considered as degenerate as it once was. Guaranteed in less than 50 years, jeans, t-shirts and trainers will be acceptable formal wear, just like you dont need to be wearing a satin tux and can wear a tweed jacket or even a flannel suit to a wedding nowadays.

You already have your answers here but part of it is also . Not having a closet full of outfits meant you picked clothes much more carefully and took care of it and wore the hell out of them too.
Hell even in the 70's and 80's, Italians gigolos had one, maybe two suits they would be wearing everyday and two or three shirts. We call that spezzatura today but back then , it was simply the way people spent their time, Monet and attention on personal style

You guys realize soap was a thing as far back as the Inca's, right?

could it be because all the shitty pictures have been lost with time and only the good ones remains ?

Your question kind of answers itself in that the fashion of the past was more coherent in its alignment with determined lifestyles in general, along with our retrospective appreciation of the mood of various historical horizons. The current proliferation of clutter and culture industry schlock evokes this nostalgia, but at the same time makes it all the more easy to distinguish the styles of exemplary individuals manifested in fashion.

This, these factors also allowed for focus on functionality and craftsmanship, clothes were often sewn at home, with every piece being th unique expression of an archetypal idea, unlike idea where most pieces are exact (cheap) copies of one of many specialised ideas.

what he drinking?

natural water

>I have no idea what I'm talking about nor any intention to research my interests and besides talking ignorant shit out of my ass is much more convenient and just as rewarding.
the post

because they weren't under attack by an evil international clique intent on wiping out their culture and social standards under the guise of "cultural revolution"

Clothes weren't mass-produced maybe? Everyone got their clothes from the local tailor, he might have had a coherent "vision", who knows.

Fewer materials to work with, in any medium, doesn't necessarily in itself entail mastery of a craft, its rather the socio-cultural-historical conditions of any time that measureably determine the potential and capabilities of artists, where exceptional products consisting of fewer materials are effects of these skills and lifestyles. There are plenty of clothes constructed out of a large variety of materials that are on par and greater in quality than the best clothes constructed out of a limited supply of materials.

>limited supply of materials.
*limited variety of materials

>fewer materials back then
The fuck are you on about? They used to make stuff from bones, sew silver threads in their mountain goat fabrics, make shoes out of feather and cork, beat wood until it was soft enough to wrap your bum with and waterproofed their jackets with fish oil and pine tar... all people wear today is either cotton of cotton/poly blends made by the same 3 typed of jersey weaving machines.

Why all men haff big noses

Because you often only see a version of the past that has been curated.

The survivor bias is by far the most intellectually lazy response to any question about the past.
Thanks for sharing your insightful wisdom

thanks reddit

Sure thing, Reddit.

Takes one to know one

Nothing more aesthetic than burying 3 siblings by your 6th birthday

>you're just romanticizing the past, people will do the same shit for our own generation one day
>People of all ages often seem to forget humans haven't changed that much in recent history
>everything changes but nothing is new.
btw both incredibly condemning and short-sighted points, no doubt stemming from an aesthetically bankrupt worldview that disregards the continuous cultivation of beauty through appreciation of the greatest life-affirming aspects of historical society and culture in favour of pre-assigning any previous and existing ideologies and ways of life to the fatalistic dustbin

p. sure we're all looking at the same photos bro

>no doubt stemming from an aesthetically bankrupt worldview that disregards the continuous cultivation of beauty through appreciation of the greatest life-affirming aspects of historical society and culture in favour of pre-assigning any previous and existing ideologies and ways of life to the fatalistic dustbin

Nah, that sounds like something Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus would say. I know beauty is the only eternal truth, so to speak- thing is I can extract myself from history.

can't, I can't extract myself from history

Lol how are you attached to your culture if you don’t go out making memories with the people, huh?

is me

I was speaking more in the context of the thread and being "effay", obviously it's good to take inspiration and ideas from the past but to romanticize the past especially in such a broad way is pretty stupid in my opinion

>eternal truth
lol what's that
>thing is I can extract myself from history.
I'm afraid that's impossible considering you weren't conceived in a vacuum, are socio-culturally-historically situated and inhereted the language you use dialogically (historically).

I know I can't, said so here

that's fine but to be fair you were kinda speaking generally and I don't think anyone here romanticized to that broad of an extent yet

ok didn't notice, you're alright

>Look at pictures of Italian immigrants arriving on Ellis island; to the establishment of the time, they looked exactly like those Syrian refugees marching on Europe:
I'm glad you see us Italians like that. Were clearly all brown people with the same style and habits
>elitist conservatives
who twist there monocles at laugh at dead poor minority's

>jeans, t-shirts and trainers will be acceptable formal wear
nope still ain't

generally speaking in the past most people had jobs that required you to physically work. Hence you see well fitting well made garments. Also an era before the hoodie and polyester. Clothing was also more expensive due to higher production and shipping costs. Also the concept of making things not to last to sell more was not a thing. I rest my case

That response was about as savage and blistering as a Ladies Auxiliary luncheon in an air conditioned tea room.

looks like a stout or porter style beer.

...

...

...

Why did everyone dress monochrome back then?

>Why were olden times so aesthetic and coherently effay?
They didn't have a choice. They didn't have the variety to choose from that we have today. Clothing items were made in just a few styles and colors, often made locally. You wore what was available, and what you could afford, because all these cucked fucks in the photos were poor as dirt. That's why you see a commonality of dress in these old photos.

Haven't seen this picture since first year archaeology user.

...

the continual disentanglement of time, culture, and sense of place as accelerated by modern media and late capitalism. read benjamin and fisher

One of the most pretentiously written posts I've seen in a long time.
You have a point, just wrote it terribly.

People were mad smelly, so I think not.

It can only seem pretentious if what is being implied in it flew over your head

...

...

More pls

That's a curated photo though. Why don't you post one where everybody look like shit instead? Oh that's right. That would contradict you romanticized narrative of history.

Lol so true !! people used to be smelly back when I wasn't around. I think I saw that on rick and morty or a vice documentary or something.

It could be reproduced in colour and framed for all I care bro, If you have issues with distinguishing and appreciating what is essential to what you are looking at that is not my problem

>That would contradict you romanticized narrative of history.
Based on this every aesthetic representation or reflection on anything ever could be termed a romanticization, except its not because that's not how we generally use the word "romanticize".

You say this ironically but it’s true

...