"Ronn,
I'd have to agree with you about the 60/70s overlap you discuss in your last News/Opinion article "Decorating your home during War Time". Although I'm a few years younger than you, the late 60s and early 70s was the first time period that I noticed design. Although I look back in disdain at that time period, I'm always trying to figure out why it was determined to be good design at the time. Of course, the same can be said of any definable era but each one should have this basic question asked of it after it moves out of fashion. What aspects may become timeless versus a flash in the pan? Was it all mass hysteria or was there something there?

The aesthetic you discuss in the designer's rooms ( http://www.designspongeonline.com/2008/03/ilse-crawford.html#commentswas ) is basically an update of that time period, IMO. Nothing really new about it but it does offer the question of how we "re-digest" old forms and visual attitudes and make them appear to be new.

Why does something come back into fashion while other eras are never resurrected?

The simple answer is that good stuff comes back around but that's not always the case. Even the awful 70s will see its day in the sun again.

God help us when it does.

Matt"

---

Matt,

I've always felt that a Past is revived first from a current cultural need, which only then causes the market to kick in. The cultural need is much more interesting to me, since the market is mere reflexive opportunism.

The cultural need to revive a Past (true, rumored, or concocted) is based on contemporary social insecurities, and adds hoped-for weight - validation - truth - stability - to current psychic needs of that population. I.e., we USE selective pieces of Pasts for our Present needs.

If a particular Past isn't revived, it's because we don't need it. In that sense, the "Zeitgeist" is as opportunistic as the market - but without the consciousness.

There's ALWAYS "something there", whether or not you like "it". Everything we make and do (and think?) is an indicator of our time. It is entirely unavoidable. It is like the air we inhale and exhale. They are inseparable though slightly altered.

However, I don't accept the concept of "Timeless". No one has ever proven to me ANY single THING from ANY single TIME has a single component of "timeless" (not even nudity in painting, because body types, hair styles, etc. go in and out of fashion!). All Time is Flash-in-the-Pan. The insecure society gives added weight to a Past by labeling it "Timeless" only to transfer that added weight to a Present.

And, if you think about it, we have NEVER actually WANTED that pure concept of "Timeless". Humans want those who are gone to have left behind results which express that era... or at least the best of that era... or at least best as defined by us... at least for now. This way we may - MAY - understand a little something beyond our noses today.

Face it, we live in constant conflict over the function and value of the Past.