Game:

The Spam Club

» The Spam Club - Reviewed Games - Comments / Discussion - [Article] 'Retro' is Stupid!
ReplyNew TopicNew Poll

[Article] 'Retro' is Stupid!

Posted at 17:45 on February 26th, 2013 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8988
Quote:
You didn't expect to read this on a website called The Good Old Days, did you? No, I haven't gone mad and I'm not even joking: I do believe that 'retro' is an inherently stupid trend and I hate how this site is usually interpreted as belonging to this niche. Because TGOD has always been intended in a different way. Surprised, shocked, confused?


Read More…
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 20:54 on February 26th, 2013 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Moderator
Retired Gumby
Posts: 1160
Cocerning the effect of
Quote:
[...] everything which 'has always been there' (i.e. has been made before this person's conscious life) is treasured, but things which came later (i.e. whose publication this person can actually remember) are not.


I think (for works of art) this has a lot to do with the fact that most people assume, that things that stood the test of time (i.e. are still mentioned today) have to have some kind of quality which distinguishes them from it's contemporary contesters. More modern works or even those that are published right now, most of the time are just a big unknown: They might be as good/bad as the hype says or it might just be clever marketing. And since we all are to some degree creatures of habit, we tend to stick to the familiar stuff.

Still it is weird to see teens walking around with pixelshades or 8-bit t-shirts just because those are so cool and absolutely not mainstream... should I pity them for not having such icons of their own or feel flattered because of the hommage to the images of youthful days long past?
-----
Dear Sir, I object strongly with the last thread, and the next post.
Posted at 21:11 on February 26th, 2013 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8988
Originally posted by Herr M. at 20:54 on February 26th, 2013:
Cocerning the effect of
Quote:
[...] everything which 'has always been there' (i.e. has been made before this person's conscious life) is treasured, but things which came later (i.e. whose publication this person can actually remember) are not.


I think (for works of art) this has a lot to do with the fact that most people assume, that things that stood the test of time (i.e. are still mentioned today) have to have some kind of quality which distinguishes them from it's contemporary contesters. More modern works or even those that are published right now, most of the time are just a big unknown: They might be as good/bad as the hype says or it might just be clever marketing.

Well, this is not even completely wrong. Believing that it is possible to judge the real qualities of a work of art before seeing its effect on coming generations ('generation' does not need to have its classic meaning referring to a human lifespan in this context) is indeed an exercise in futility. Which is why I also believe it is inherently silly to see recent hits on a list of the top 250 films of all time, for example.

It's a subject Wandrell and I also briefly touched upon in our discussion of RoboSport.
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 21:31 on February 26th, 2013 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Moderator
Retired Gumby
Posts: 1160
Originally posted by Mr Creosote at 21:11 on February 26th, 2013:
Which is why I also believe it is inherently silly to see recent hits on a list of the top 250 films of all time, for example.

Well just keep in mind, that this is a list of the most popular titles of all times... today. ;) The next 'generation' might laugh at it (especially the overhyped Dark Knight and LoTR films) or envy us for such great films like Memento, but chances are, that they might actually look them up on IMDB simply because it's that popular and opinion-forming. Hmmm... which reminds me: I should really get a copy of The Shawshank Redemption someday...

Oh and by the way: As stupid as it might be: Happy Site-creation day. :)
-----
Dear Sir, I object strongly with the last thread, and the next post.
Posted at 11:13 on March 31st, 2013 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Guest
Ein gesundes Verhältnis aus Geistesgegenwart, Bewusstheit des Vergangenem und Offenheit gegenüber Zukünftigem ist wünschenswert, was aber jeder für sich ausmachen muss.
Ich stelle mir die Frage, wie weit man in Erinnerungen vor der eigenen Zeit eintauchen kann, ohne sich selbst zu verlieren. Denn das Interesse an Vergangenem kann grundsätzlich so verkehrt doch nicht sein.
Wann heißt es aufzuhören mit dem rückwärtsgewandten forschen? Was zu denen sagen, die sich für die kulturellen Anfänge dieser jungen Medien begeistern? Ab wann wird die Neugier schädlich für einen selbst?
Posted at 13:32 on March 31st, 2013 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8988
Ja, das sind die entscheidenden, und letztlich nicht eindeutig zu beantwortenden Fragen. Hierbei fällt mir ein:
Quote:
Ich stelle mir die Frage, wie weit man in Erinnerungen vor der eigenen Zeit eintauchen kann, ohne sich selbst zu verlieren.

Da sollte man natürlich nicht außer Acht lassen, dass die (auf die persönliche Biographie bezogen) „Vorvergangenheit“ auch immer in gewisser Weise Teil des Selbst ist. Schließlich ist man in einer Welt aufgewachsen und von Personen geprägt, die sich wiederum aus dieser noch länger zurückliegenden Zeit ergaben. Indirekt führt die Verbindung also sehr wohl zu jedem Einzelnen.

Wobei man vielleicht als Daumenregel (außerhalb wissenschaftlicher Betrachtungen) sagen könnte: „Natürlich“ ist es, wenn die Detailtiefe, mit der man sich mit einer vergangenen Zeit beschäftigt, mit steigender Selbstdistanz abnimmt. Was immer noch sehr allgemein ist.
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
ReplyNew TopicNew Poll
Powered by Spam Board 5.2.4 © 2007 - 2011 Spam Board Team