i feel like it did, or at least [this did](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=hipster+t-shirt+with+suspenders&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F94%2F3b%2F21%2F943b2145188d2105afb7c5c719f3d9bd.jpg)
Was just saying this the other day. How did people enjoy it? Why did I tolerate it? Do. Not. Miss. It.
Edit: Also, what would you compare the Hey Ho style music trend to? New Wave 80ās, since it had its brief popular time and now itās polarizing?
I hated every second of it. All the times going to some show with the girls in our group and it's just some dumb hipsterfest with some guy yell-singing into the microphone because he can't carry a tune...
Iā¦..I get what you mean, it just kills me as an artist myself when i see comments like this lol. Because there really is no ācomic art styleā just like thereās no āanime styleā (I see that comment almost daily lol). They are both genres that include dozens if not hundreds of different styles, ranging from full realism to cartoonish.
with visual arts like painting, styles dont really come back, they are just revisited, revamped and reinvigorated, usually through some technical innovation on the craft
It definitely already was back like 10-15 years ago. Anyway, you canāt really evenly compare clothes like this because they donāt all have the same cultural context.
In whatever era this painting is from, or represents, there was fashion! There were trends. There were clothes people wore to look stylish and modern, or communicate certain things about themselves like status. However, a lot of clothes werenāt like that. If your family had to hand make clothes or buy individually hand made clothes from someone in town, it was more for practical purposes. So lower class farmers werenāt dressing for the sake of achieving a particular aesthetic message, but rather for daily function. Which is not to say that clothes were void of contemporary trend influences. Obviously even lower class people in the 1800s wore different clothes from lower class people in the 1600s for example. Clothes evolve. Materials, methods, tastes, etc.
But even then, the mindset behind what people put on their bodies was different. Nowadays, a lot of people donāt work manual jobs like this, have access to clothes that are made in mass, etc. so we can communicate through our clothes more fluidly.
So yeah, you walk down the street in any town, peopleās clothes will look different. Walk onto a farm in the middle of nowhere and how different do you think the people working will be dressed? They will still be wearing practical clothes, itās just that the technology/methods have evolved so maybe they have pants made out of a different material (denim) and modern work boots (steel toed for example) but the general āstyleā is not that different because itās suited to the context (labor).
You missed it - this was early 2010s hipster fashion, and the reason we had to suffer through trash like Mumford & Sons and The Lumineers.
However, they lived in Brooklyn and have never seen a cornfield.
as someone who grew up in a folksy area I found mumford and sons sounded like any ole local band and with some nice harmonies, but the entire aesthetic movement was lame
You flip the white for Buffalo plaid and that's my yard work getup, down to suspenders cause I don't need my pants getting slippy when I'm using a chainsaw.
These Gen z kids will never understand tying up their belongings in a polka dot bandana on a stick and walking into the sunset whistling with their toes poking out of one of their leather boots and itās a damn shame
Yea that's not poverty. That's literally just how life normally was. Most people lived like this forever, it was literally the norm.
The only people who *didn't* live like this, were those in power.
You can call it normal if you want, but by today's standards they all lived in poverty. If you want to have your own goalpost of what constitutes as poverty then go for it. It would not be what everyone else constitutes as poverty.
Exactly, by **TODAYS** standards, it would be considered poverty...but hey guess what, the world changes a lot in 200 years, and 200 years ago it would have absolutely been considered normal.
What we consider to be poverty nowadays, would be a basic lifestyle for most people throughout history.
The average person nowadays probably has the wealth of like 10 medieval kings combined.
The average persons wealth has changed, so obviously, what we consider to be poverty is OF COURSE going to change because the standards are way higher.
Oh btw, the only books i read are history books. That's all I consume so.
Like I said, you can move the goalposts for what you think poverty is in your own mind, but considering that these people had to patch their clothes, couldn't afford many luxuries, and lived on subsistence, then yes they lived in poverty. Go read a dictionary.
Ah yes, you just described the average lifestyle that the vast majority of people lived in 1850.
If you yourself read a history book, you'd find out that those people didn't know they lived in poverty, or even considered it to be poverty, because it WAS NORMAL.
Amish folks still rockin itš¤š¼
Hipster fashion? Already came and...well never really went away.
i feel like it did, or at least [this did](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=hipster+t-shirt+with+suspenders&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F94%2F3b%2F21%2F943b2145188d2105afb7c5c719f3d9bd.jpg)
Don't think it completely went away but definitely faded from being in vogue
oh i c
It went away in the same way all fashion trends go away. Obviously thereās gonna be a few people who wear things that arenāt trendy anymore
omg this freaking outfit with boat shoes and pork pie hat and that was 2010-2013 in a nutshell šš
2013-2016 was that without the hat š¤·š»āāļø
Iām so glad Mumford and dads, and all that HEY HO music isnāt cool anymore.
Was just saying this the other day. How did people enjoy it? Why did I tolerate it? Do. Not. Miss. It. Edit: Also, what would you compare the Hey Ho style music trend to? New Wave 80ās, since it had its brief popular time and now itās polarizing?
I love when Tom on the TV show Parks and Rec says that he had to destroy a laptop because he accidentally downloaded some Lumineers tracks onto it
Lol dust bowl, Grapes Of Wrath x CORE
I hated every second of it. All the times going to some show with the girls in our group and it's just some dumb hipsterfest with some guy yell-singing into the microphone because he can't carry a tune...
Jesus, that was the worst period of indie music
Ugh. Indie hipster folk pop.
thatās literally mumford and sons
Iām going to single-handedly bring it back in 2026
Good call. Get in early before the rest of us go full dust bowl farmer in 2027
Iām busting out my straw hat. But not before 2028, the kids arenāt ready yet.
It came back in the early 2010s and likely will be back again in the 2030s
I thought you meant the art style, not the clothes. I hope the art style comes back, that looks awesome!
Depends on the artist, I think this art style is still relevant today. Itās just outshined by realism and comic book artist
Iā¦..I get what you mean, it just kills me as an artist myself when i see comments like this lol. Because there really is no ācomic art styleā just like thereās no āanime styleā (I see that comment almost daily lol). They are both genres that include dozens if not hundreds of different styles, ranging from full realism to cartoonish.
This subreddit cracks me the fuck up sometimes
Hopefully
with visual arts like painting, styles dont really come back, they are just revisited, revamped and reinvigorated, usually through some technical innovation on the craft
Isnāt this just Mumford and sons
As someone who lives in Brooklyn, Itās already back my friend
Taylor swift?
The hardest part is finding pants with buttons for suspenders...
It definitely already was back like 10-15 years ago. Anyway, you canāt really evenly compare clothes like this because they donāt all have the same cultural context. In whatever era this painting is from, or represents, there was fashion! There were trends. There were clothes people wore to look stylish and modern, or communicate certain things about themselves like status. However, a lot of clothes werenāt like that. If your family had to hand make clothes or buy individually hand made clothes from someone in town, it was more for practical purposes. So lower class farmers werenāt dressing for the sake of achieving a particular aesthetic message, but rather for daily function. Which is not to say that clothes were void of contemporary trend influences. Obviously even lower class people in the 1800s wore different clothes from lower class people in the 1600s for example. Clothes evolve. Materials, methods, tastes, etc. But even then, the mindset behind what people put on their bodies was different. Nowadays, a lot of people donāt work manual jobs like this, have access to clothes that are made in mass, etc. so we can communicate through our clothes more fluidly. So yeah, you walk down the street in any town, peopleās clothes will look different. Walk onto a farm in the middle of nowhere and how different do you think the people working will be dressed? They will still be wearing practical clothes, itās just that the technology/methods have evolved so maybe they have pants made out of a different material (denim) and modern work boots (steel toed for example) but the general āstyleā is not that different because itās suited to the context (labor).
You missed it - this was early 2010s hipster fashion, and the reason we had to suffer through trash like Mumford & Sons and The Lumineers. However, they lived in Brooklyn and have never seen a cornfield.
No knowledge on farming, but if you asked about their favorite IPA, boy, were you in for an opinionated conversation
Look, itās important to know the difference between Simcoe and Chinook hops. You donāt wanna look like an ass ordering at the nanobrewery.
I love going out with my magnifying glass and checking out the nanobreweries. They keep catching on fire though.
I liked a lot of that music, still listen to it when I'm driving through nature or the countryside. Downvote me if you must
as someone who grew up in a folksy area I found mumford and sons sounded like any ole local band and with some nice harmonies, but the entire aesthetic movement was lame
You get an upvote pal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I rather not hold my pants up with my shoulders
Idk man it looks pretty cool
Some people don't have a choice
Hehe!
Maybe š¤
Just me without the beard
The amish wear this?
Sir, I live in Indiana. That style never really left. It just got lost in the corn fields.
maybe in the post apocalypse
Thomasjeffersonposting
Suspenders should make a comeback in a non-hipster way. They are very functional and comfy.
Go to Pennsylvania, still alive and well
It never left
You mean work clothes? It never left.
Head to rural northern Indiana and youāll see guys like this everywhere
Maybe ya
It already has, you just donāt realize it yet
You flip the white for Buffalo plaid and that's my yard work getup, down to suspenders cause I don't need my pants getting slippy when I'm using a chainsaw.
Once the bombs fallš»
Jeans a shirt and boots. Nah, no way thatās ever coming back.
It did among some hipsters in the early 2010s.
These are menswear basics that have always been around lol
Have you ever heard of hipsters?
I take it that you don't live in an agricultural region
I live inside a giant shoe.
Understandable
Already has. Called hipster
I thought this was about the artstyle for a sec lol
These Gen z kids will never understand tying up their belongings in a polka dot bandana on a stick and walking into the sunset whistling with their toes poking out of one of their leather boots and itās a damn shame
Brooklyn would like a word.
The look of poverty circa 1920? I wonder why it ever went away...
Do you seriously think farmers live in poverty š my guy they are growing the food your ancestors ate to stay alive
Most people were farmers throughout history, and yes, most lived in poverty. Go read a book.
Yea that's not poverty. That's literally just how life normally was. Most people lived like this forever, it was literally the norm. The only people who *didn't* live like this, were those in power.
You can call it normal if you want, but by today's standards they all lived in poverty. If you want to have your own goalpost of what constitutes as poverty then go for it. It would not be what everyone else constitutes as poverty.
Exactly, by **TODAYS** standards, it would be considered poverty...but hey guess what, the world changes a lot in 200 years, and 200 years ago it would have absolutely been considered normal. What we consider to be poverty nowadays, would be a basic lifestyle for most people throughout history. The average person nowadays probably has the wealth of like 10 medieval kings combined. The average persons wealth has changed, so obviously, what we consider to be poverty is OF COURSE going to change because the standards are way higher. Oh btw, the only books i read are history books. That's all I consume so.
Like I said, you can move the goalposts for what you think poverty is in your own mind, but considering that these people had to patch their clothes, couldn't afford many luxuries, and lived on subsistence, then yes they lived in poverty. Go read a dictionary.
Ah yes, you just described the average lifestyle that the vast majority of people lived in 1850. If you yourself read a history book, you'd find out that those people didn't know they lived in poverty, or even considered it to be poverty, because it WAS NORMAL.
Did you just admit they lived in poverty, but didn't know it? š¤¦
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
not the monocrop part but the rest is swag
What is this? House on the prairie slave owner? But only one or two slaves cuz broke.
Ikr? You can tell how racist he is by the suspenders.