It's interesting to me that the post from which I linked to this vid brought it up as the subject of derision. I enjoy a lot of these preserved vintage vignettes, and am fascinated in the car-wreck sense that someone who seems to share an interest in history presumes that the people watching a piece like this are only doing so to laugh at its outlandishness.
Most of the people I know who'd find clips of this sort would in fact die of pleasure, finding extraordinarily clear, 360-degree views of genuine vintage styling, especially hair styling. The watching and sharing is all for enjoyment, in every iteration of anything like this I've ever seen before. Indeed, the enjoyment of beauty - and, for an awful lot of people, recapturing some of its essence, or even recreating it today - is the reward here.
Obviously, some who run across vintage videos online probably do find them quaintly amusing, or perhaps baffling. Those people, though, aren't the preservers, and most of the time I have to assume they are neither the intended audience nor came across them intentionally, certainly not just to laugh at them. It is sad, and bewildering, that someone who would not seem a casual, taunting gawker, then, looks at this clip as, in their mind "obviously", a source of derision.
I find these ladies' styles to be fascinating, and their beauty its own point of interest. It is a lesson in both an early technology already obsessed with women on display, with commodotizing beauty - with the aesthetics of the two periods it presents.
Why would that be risible ... ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment