New Vs. Old — Which Is Better?
Considering the past and present, and how tastes move along or don’t
In an episode of the hit sitcom How I Met Your Mother, Barney Stinson makes a bold claim.
“New is always better.”
His friends challenge the truth, as does Barney himself.
New means keeping up with the times. New is a welcome addition to history. New is more exciting, or so it seems.
Originality has always been looked well on, particularly when it confirms the aesthetic and values of the era it’s been created in and for.
Avant-garde work, on the other hand, can be puzzling or leave us outraged.
Just look at Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring”, which was said to leave audiences riotous.
And is it a coincidence that art and artists we treasure now were largely unknown in their time?
For writers, that’s Kafka, Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, and Korean writer Yi Sang. They weren’t half as recognized as they are today.
This could be because their generation simply wasn’t ready for their vision. Or because whatever this generation’s made of vibes more with that vision.
There are definitely still traditionalists out there. That Kendrick Lamar won the Pulitzer Prize for Music in 2018 caused controversy.
How can rhythmic chanting full of slang, slurs and swear words — the crude view of rap — be mentioned in the same breath as a classic quartet?
It was said the Pulitzer suddenly became a not so “narrow” honor. This is the conservative camp speaking.
Of course, it’s going to be shocking and slightly insulting that the stereotypically vulgar genre of expression, rap, can hold a candle to a majestic ensemble of violins, violas, and cello.
But maybe they have a point. Maybe there is some stuff that’s better old.
As far as music’s concerned, the use of electronic sounds and salacious lyrics are widely aimed at for criticism. And music videos? It’s actually common to find comments on Youtube praising a video that doesn’t include sex, drugs, girls, cars and the like.
Talent remains what we respond to. At least mostly.
“Oldies” — be it music, films or TV programs — is a much-loved category of media. A lot of it is connected to nostalgia. It’s an experience listening to something today and remember who you were and what you were doing when you first listened to it, or when it was popular.
A lot of it is also connected, I think, to a less personal nostalgia.
Whatever belongs to the past can’t truly be regained. That’s enough to make it charming.
What’s the deal, then, with the old stuff? Stuff we can put our hands on and possess.
I’m talking about technology and material goods, including watches, cameras, even phones.
The Apple Watch is pretty much the most modern watch you can get on the market. Smartwatches are buzzing, mainly for the convenience they offer. I mean it as a flashlight, heart rate monitor, GPS, and alarm clock doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what it can really do.
Compare all these functions to a regular watch, which merely tells the time (and okay, the date and some other comparatively minor details).
Why wouldn’t you want a smartwatch? It makes life easier.
But there’s something to be said about a vintage timepiece sitting on your wrist. Plenty of folks with watch collections joke they don’t check their watch for the time.
Watches are more of a decoration, a symbol of wealth, and unique style.
Those who do check it for the time, however, are different. It’s bizarre to have to charge your watch every night. Plus, isn’t your phone supposed to be your personal assistant, not your watch?
The smartwatch is nice and all, but it won’t replace the smartphone. For that reason, it won’t replace a regular watch — and certainly not outclass a Rolex.
And cameras?
Film cameras are antiquities to some, but to others, far from it. Here it’s argued that film cameras are actually superior to digital ones — or at the very least, worth hanging onto at the moment.
Truth is, it’s hard to be an old soul and have old soul stuff.
We can’t continue with our old soul tendencies to stick with the old when the systems and establishments around us are all swimming in the opposite direction, towards the new.
Fashion is a little harder to distinguish as one side being old and the other new, largely because many of the fashion pieces we have today are influenced by what was worn 20–200 years ago.
Tom Ford, a now household name in the world of luxury brands, brought back the wide lapels of the ’70s. There’s this list of trends that shows how fabrics and cuts have trickled into the everyday clothes we have in stores today.
It sounds crazy but ancient Egyptian cosmetics are part of what’s determined beauty routines today.
Depending on where you are in the world, makeup can mean something different.
It says here that in the West, a “fierce, confident” look is the goal, whereas in Asia, a “more natural” look is preferred.
It’s evident if you rewind just 10 years, that makeup wasn’t what it was today, regardless of region.
Bold outlining, darkening, shading and all that weren’t in. Contouring didn’t really exist, and the fake eyelashes worn were much subtler. Lip injections, rhinoplasty and genioplasty (jawline surgery) were far less common.
The Kylie Jenner, Kim Kardashian look — that is, a look driven by surgery — is prized. But what happened to less fake beauty symbols, the Marilyn Monroes, the Cindy Crawfords, the Audrey Hepburns, the Naomi Sims’?
For men, too, has a new look washed shore.
Having a beard instead of being clean-shaven is one major indication that he’s a 21st-century guy. Notice how virtually no movie stars of the past — Marlon Brando, James Dean, Gene Kelly, Charlie Chaplin — sported fuzzy faces?
Now Jake Gyllenhaal, Hugh Jackman, Jason Momoa, George Clooney, Ryan Gosling and Keanu Reeves all are contributing to a prolonged no-shave November.
Perhaps the majority of people are quite content with our serving of men and women today. But it’d be lying to say we don’t, at least sometimes, miss the olden day appearance of celebrities.
Or, as I see it, we just miss the olden day life because it’s difficult being happy with the green grass on our side.
Having an old and a new is positive. It accommodates more than one universal taste. Besides, you can’t have one without the other. There’s no new without the underpinning of the old. Everything’s rooted.
