5 ms·
this remembering of the past and what they thought about us can mostly only mean one thing: we ourselves can't and haven't been able to think of the future.
by rutherblood 6y ago
this remembering of the past and what they thought about us can mostly only mean one thing: we ourselves can't and haven't been able to think of the future.
- themodelplumber 6y agoIt's subjective remembering though, so this message would primarily apply to those who are creating such content or consuming it. Those are the ones for whom your viewpoint may be true. Others do create / conceptualize "new" futures, though I would add that a lot of this is a metaphor for big-picture ideas and general creativity drawn from the yet-unknown, which are then birthed into the present (the future present ;-)). These people have a tough job to do, because audiences like HN share the tech space with them, but tend to be relentlessly critical of wild new ideas at the same time. We are that retro-future crowd that's short on (or generally annoyed by) new ideas, many of us.
- jbay808 6y agoI mean, there were also some remarkably prescient predictions made at the time. But the more accurate they were, the less likely they'd define a retrofuturistic artistic genre.
- pm90 6y agoThat's one possible way to look at it. The art of the present and the past is strongly influenced by the technological innovations that society has access to. However, there isn't any reason why the art of yesterday can't be used with the technology of present. e.g. rotary telephones were designed because that was the only option to dial numbers; but someone might find that kind of telephone to be nice today because of the user experience (just a wild example) and they could be made today but with IC's etc.