One glaring error: he has tats, but she doesn’t?
@doctorow the links for Seattle and Cochella go to the same tweet.
The problem here is that while the tweet mentions Seattle, it absolutely doesn’t mention Cochella at all.
Maybe there’s another tweet you meant to link to wrt Cochella? Cochella is definitely a popular spot in Seattle, but it isn’t all of Seattle…
She could have tats… you just can’t see them…
Alternatively the assumption I made was that he was wearing body paint, seeing as it’s fashion, and fashion changes constantly.
I don’t think this was meant to predict future fashion, but rather point out what seems normal or fashionable today might be totally bizarre years later or before. To make the point, the artist/cartoonist really had to go all out in the illustration.
You know how we laugh at photos of people in fashionable clothing from the '70s or '80s? Same thing. We all thought those were perfectly normal clothes back then. Well, mostly. Today’s skinny jeans and too tight coats would have been laughed at in 1980, just like they’ll be laughed at in the 2040s.
I had skinny jeans and a ridiculous coat in the 80s. I mean, I also have a ridiculous coat now, several in fact, but still.
So did I! That’s how I know people laughed at it.
Which is definitely fashion in Seattle for certain days of the year!
And then there are some really stupid and crazy people and sadly Seattle is full of ones like this too. But I was referring more to the Solstice/Fremont Fair and such where people are dressed only in body paint.
Interesting point on attributions. It looks like Cory got it from Diane Duane, who picked it up from a blog by a Matthew. But where did Matthew get it from? Probably from the magazineart.org site …I put it there in 2013 … but I had found it among the eBay listings of seller “americanartarchives”. AFAIK, that seller owned the original copy … which of course was originally owned by the Wilmington Institute Free Library, they having received it in the mail in 1914.
I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.
Okay, I saw an Alex Jones rant babbling on about people shooting themselves for body art and sexual purposes and tying it into the “gay agenda”.
I thought “crazy crazy is talking again, who gave him the mic?”
Now I see that he’s talking about this guy. But of course as a conspiracy theorist he has to generalize from a few avant garde art people to “all gays everywhere forcing it onto the god-fearing”.
NY Times: “comedy”
Delusions in Modern Primitivism (2000)
Title: Delusions in Modern Primitivism
Running Time: 17 Minutes
Country: United States
In 1914, nudity was easy to imagine, but not gentlemen in public without hats.
In 2015, it’s still not easy to imagine gentlemen in public without hats.
If you don’t watch the film, how will you know that it has been classified correctly?
Yes, they all survived to the end of the play.
Yeah I kinda suspected it was a put on though still close to reality for some of the weirdos I have met.
It’s also nice to notice that this was the OLD Life magazine, the sassy one like Judge, not the Henry Luce-y Picture magazine. You can still see its name on w31st street’s Herald Square Hotel: https://firstname.lastname@example.org,-73.98707,3a,75y,11.98h,112.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJPVyBB7ED7ZXFKc6-ZHWLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Past predictions of a a future that is now past are usually fascinating (Prelinger archives, 1984, Paris au xxe siècle, The Black Cloud, Space: 1999).