I don't know but in previous recessions the best-selling books have been bonkbusters (seriously check Judith Krantz, Jilly Cooper and Jackie Collins sales during recessions, they're sky high) which makes me think that while we may not splash the cash, escapism still sells on the big screen and between the pages. Or at least that's going to be my justification when I write a 900 plus Lace-style bodice ripper involving revenge, double crossing, dirty secrets coming to haunt people and a lot of sex, preferably pervy sex.
the difference between the great depression vs. today is that everybody had it tough in the great depression and you didn't have to see it in a movie theater during a news reel before the movie because you already knew it. it was locally felt and not globally reported.
this time around, it's locally felt, globally reported, and yet people are still charging their credit cards because they want to "live life, dammit".
I couldn't say why, but I think that the last few years, aspirational as they were, may have killed luxury gawking for a lot of people. Or at least, for me. It's not like the Depression; I think people then were willing to gawk at luxury as a very unattainable kind of thing. It was fun to look at, but they were never going to get it.
This time around, people are coming off of a sense that they really could get this stuff, and often did. Luxury became accessible to the masses, and the things that weren't accessible tended not to affect people's quality of life in any significant way (i.e. I couldn't have the bejeweled cell phone, but I could still have just as good a cell phone). Now, those of us who were just about hanging on to middle class face real and significant decline in our quality of life because of the state of the economy. I just can't stomach waste and excess in other people when that's happening. I don't look up to them; I see what they have and assume they must be assholes. Unfair, certainly, but I've had enough of unfairness to our hardworking selves and think we deserve a little more of the opportunity and peace of mind that these folks squander on an hourly basis.
@TheFormerJuneBronson: I think that this is so true. The first and biggest hit was to the financial industry, now you have a huge sector of people who tasted wealth and lost it just as fast. People know what they're missing.
@TheFormerJuneBronson: Also I think that the fact that luxury was so much more accessible to the middle class, devalued its worth to some extent. The middle class learned that having a Vuitton bag or living in Mc Mansions was not going to magically transform their lives into glamorous havens and for many did the reverse.
@J.D.Regent: I wish wish wish I could have a victory garden!!! Growing my own food, making my own bread, etc. sounds so nice to me. Of course, I walk in the door from work at 7:30 so hungry I want to make the fastest dinner possible.
I would think that conspicuous consumption is way more prevalent than it was during the depression era. People are getting themselves into debt and other financial problems because they want to look and act like the wealthy. They see celebs all day long on TV and websites, and want to live like they do.
Think of an average teenage girl from a middle class family watching Gossip Girl, it probably makes her feel like crap because her parents dont have those financial means. I think its kind of irresponsible.
What I love about Gossip Girl is that it's avid fantasy coming from a source of established escapism.... not "How to live on $500K coming from the NYTimes which I (at least used to) consider a source of information relevant to my /life/.
@J.D.Regent: Amen to that. Creative pursuits fuel economic development and innovation like nobody's business. And, let's not forget--the people, their hearts need food too.
Luxury, to me, is having furniture that does not need to be supported with bricks and a constant supply of Carlo Rossi. The bar is not set very high for me.
But there's something about the garish, ostentatious opulence of bygone days that's like candy to me. When I see period films, for example, and peasants find their way into a richly appointed royal court? Or even portrayals of more modern times - like a film from the 30s or 40s that show men in expensive suits and women dripping with jewels. Those portrayals are over-the-top, almost visceral.
Something about that really resonates with me when it's in a historic context. It could just be that I recognize, despite the fact that I am a low-on-the -totem-pole corporate drone, that I have it better than many of my predecessors. I have high-speed information, fast fashion, and the ability to make phone calls anywhere, anytime. I don't have to make or mend my own clothes. I can bathe daily. I can move about freely while menstruating. I don't have to worry about leprosy or polio.
My dining room may be a particle-board folding table and an area rug; my bed may be a mattress on the floor. But I have it really good in 2009, compared to what it was like to be a working stiff for most of history. So that may be why I'm secretly fascinated by displays of opulence in bygone days--back then, the wealthy were the only ones who had the luxuries that I have now.
It's what separates historic portrayals from the blinged-out, ostentatious, tone-deaf displays of wealth that we see today--like GOOP, and executives that cry that they can't live on $500,000 a year. That feels like rubbing it in my face. Historical portrayals don't.
@tscheese: Word. I love seeing Ginger Rogers in some sort of satin house-robe that goes over her evening nightgown and fancy lingerie. Which she wears "because it's Tuesday."
Seeing someone actually shop for that on the UES would fill me with rage.
When the money paying for the luxury is company money and workers are being laid off, furloughed or having pay cuts, then the luxury spending should stop. When the money paying for the luxury is a rich person's private money, then put that money into the economy by some luxury spending or giving to some nonprofits.
Attn: All NYC Jezebels - My Man Godfrey/Easy Living double bill this Saturday at the Film Forum. If you can stand all the Valentine's couples, that is.
Here is what I want out of luxury.....I want top name designers to carry on, but in a more eco-friendly way (yes, I know that some have already done this) and then I want to start to covet that 100% bamboo ball gown that came down the runway at J. Mendel's show at Fashion week, or the faux-leather Bottega handbag in the window at Saks. That's what I want, and so that is what should happen. *stomps foot*
I get no perverse thrill out of people with that kind of money. The excess and obliviousness just make me feel helpless and angry. Logically, my irritation that some people live in a money-cushioned bubble will not change anything, and so I save myself the anguish and busy myself with working with what I have. No sense getting my blood pressure up about other people when I could be focusing on my own life.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
this time around, it's locally felt, globally reported, and yet people are still charging their credit cards because they want to "live life, dammit".
02/09/09
This time around, people are coming off of a sense that they really could get this stuff, and often did. Luxury became accessible to the masses, and the things that weren't accessible tended not to affect people's quality of life in any significant way (i.e. I couldn't have the bejeweled cell phone, but I could still have just as good a cell phone). Now, those of us who were just about hanging on to middle class face real and significant decline in our quality of life because of the state of the economy. I just can't stomach waste and excess in other people when that's happening. I don't look up to them; I see what they have and assume they must be assholes. Unfair, certainly, but I've had enough of unfairness to our hardworking selves and think we deserve a little more of the opportunity and peace of mind that these folks squander on an hourly basis.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
Think of an average teenage girl from a middle class family watching Gossip Girl, it probably makes her feel like crap because her parents dont have those financial means. I think its kind of irresponsible.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
But there's something about the garish, ostentatious opulence of bygone days that's like candy to me. When I see period films, for example, and peasants find their way into a richly appointed royal court? Or even portrayals of more modern times - like a film from the 30s or 40s that show men in expensive suits and women dripping with jewels. Those portrayals are over-the-top, almost visceral.
Something about that really resonates with me when it's in a historic context. It could just be that I recognize, despite the fact that I am a low-on-the -totem-pole corporate drone, that I have it better than many of my predecessors. I have high-speed information, fast fashion, and the ability to make phone calls anywhere, anytime. I don't have to make or mend my own clothes. I can bathe daily. I can move about freely while menstruating. I don't have to worry about leprosy or polio.
My dining room may be a particle-board folding table and an area rug; my bed may be a mattress on the floor. But I have it really good in 2009, compared to what it was like to be a working stiff for most of history. So that may be why I'm secretly fascinated by displays of opulence in bygone days--back then, the wealthy were the only ones who had the luxuries that I have now.
It's what separates historic portrayals from the blinged-out, ostentatious, tone-deaf displays of wealth that we see today--like GOOP, and executives that cry that they can't live on $500,000 a year. That feels like rubbing it in my face. Historical portrayals don't.
I'm weird that way.
02/09/09
Seeing someone actually shop for that on the UES would fill me with rage.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09