I did read Flatland in grad school, which is probably why I can easily accept an imaginary being that only exists and perceives two dimensions.
Quondam, I do see what you mean by the geometry being misrepresented. In our multi-dimensional world, it is.
The point of the video was that space can be both infinite and bounded, and the example, along with the examples of toroids and Klein bottles and others I'm forgetting, helped me understand that.
But isn't the point that the 2D being would *perceive* the Mobius strip *as if it were* a flat plane, even though it isn't? And so similarly we humans can only perceive space as having three dimensions when it might actually have 10 or 20?
I saw on my homepage that Eileen Brennan passed away, either today or yesterday. She had that trademark gravelly voice. She broke into show biz but if she hadn't, she would have made a darn good cocktail waitress in Las Vegas with her street smart vibe and deep voice. RIP Eileen Brennan, who was native to Los Angeles. It's kind of like getting an architecture job in a location you like - it doesn't hurt to have gone to a-school nearby.
Far from her best, and not as gravelly as she can be, but here's a clip:
i read flatland. i enjoyed it. i also read thermal delight in architecture in school. also a good read.
Q, let's assume X and Y don't have to be straight lines. they're still lines, so you're creating 2 dimensions without a 3rd. in that case, a 2-dimensional entity could exist on your mobius strip, since the mobius strip is created by folding a 2-dimensional plane. their only experience of the third dimension is from your experience of the Z axis; since they're bound to the flat surface they have no 3rd dimension of their own.
didn't einstein's theory of relativity have something to do with that? it's still a 2-d plane that was distorted. or something like that. i don't know.
Quondam, does your reference above "Flatland, summer 1978, Perry, Missouri" refer to when and where you read it? I find that detail fun within this conversation.
Hey, folks, for those who are not highbrow and could live just about anywhere, here's the list for the Top 10 states for frugal living. I couldn't live in all of these, but some. I noticed that, of the western and eastern states, only Idaho made the list. I think I would be haunted by knowing Sarah Palin came from there, so I'd pass on Idaho, parts of which are very scenic. However, of the other 9, I could do Texas (The Woodlands of Houston), Arkansas (Hot Springs Village or other piney areas, but not Little Rock, which the Clintons called home), Indiana (the capital region) and Mississippi (as long as it was Gulfport or thereabouts, and looked like the FL panhandle).
in your picture of the mobius strip, you could say the paper you made it out of is 2-dimensional if you ignore the thickness. when you bent the 2-d paper, you made a 3-d shape.
in autocad, i draft on a 2-d surface. space-time is distorted. that's the sort of thing einstein was talking about with relativity. so, autocad is newtonian physics.
if an entity existed on the 2-dimensional surface of your mobius strip, they would be 2-d. if you bent that 2-dimensional surface, it would not change the state or characteristics of the 2-d entity living on the 2-d surface. they would still be 2-d.
the summer of 1978 was pretty exciting for me. i had my first birthday around then!
I thought surely that story was going to end in afternoon delight, up on the roof, with Barbara-ann.
I drove by the St. Louis arch when I was a kid. We lived in Ohio, and visited my grandparents in Texas, often. We back through St. Louis, so I'm still not sure why we did that time. I just vaguely remember looking out the window, and climbing to my knees for a better view. Shame we didn't stop, but I'm not sure I would've remembered it much.
I've been reading a book about Graphic Arts procedures, published in 1957. I'm trying to bone up on typefaces and the like. The book is fascinating on some levels, and completely obsolete in others. They hadn't even invented computers when this book came out! I'm taking notes on the parts about typefaces, kerning, and leading (which I always read as LEEDing, and not the as learned LEDing), but I'm skimming over the parts on typeface drawers, and hand-setting type.
Man, I miss putting some emo music (usually Elliott Smith) on my headphones and stippling for hours. There was something so wonderfully relaxing and therapeutic about that constant motion of delicateness.
A simple example of two-dimensions: the surface of a sphere. While to our familiar outlook the sphere looks three dimensional, if an object is constrained to lie on the surface, it only has two dimensions that it can move in. The surface of a sphere can be completely described by two dimensions since no matter how rough the surface may appear to be, it is still only a surface. (wiki)
Since space is pretty much accepted as curved - introduced by Einstein with his theory of General Relativity - it seems natural that from a 3D point of view a curved surface is 3D. But to an observer constrained to that surface it would be flat. 3D space is not flat, but to us it looks flat.
It's kind of amusing seeing you argue the 2D point of view from a 3D one. And your drawing is by definition 2D, even according to your more stringent Euclidean definition as I'm viewing it on a flat screen monitor.
I'm not mixing "logics", you're mixing reference points.
In basic geometry, any point on a planar system can be described by two coordinates: X and Y. The surface of a sphere has the exact same properties - any point on it can be described by two coordinates: latitude and longitude.
If you were constrained to a 2-dimensional surface - a plane, the surface of a sphere or a möbius strip - there would be no third dimension. Thus referencing the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere from the center of a 3-dimensional sphere, or anywhere not on the surface, is impossible because that dimension does not exist. It is an extrinsic point of view.
A möbius strip is not a 3-dimensional entity, it is an imaginary construct consisting of a single sided surface with a single boundary (edge). It is only the representation of it in the form of a model that you see as 3-dimensional.
a 2-dimensional strip that has been twisted into a 3-d surface is still a 2-d strip.
which is still imaginary, because we perceive pretty much everything in 3 dimensions (and ignore extra dimension, assuming there are extra dimensions). on a globe, you can describe a certain point on a 2-d plane with latitude and longitude (2 dimensions). but at a smaller scale, there is a 3rd dimension (elevation above sea level, or height).
I happen to be family friends with the hipster from NYC who got attacked by a raccoon.
I see. Six degrees of separation at work. I don't want people getting attacked by raccoons or other animals, but hipsters and granolas aren't my cup of tea, so the headline grabbed me. They reflexively don't like me. They incorrectly assume I am the establishment. This chick did something to provoke the attack, per the article. She could have just walked around and past the altercation between the two raccoons. We periodically have them around and I might see one late at night when pulling in. I assumed they were the size of a cat. They are much larger.
but we all live in a multi-dimensional world even though we only perceive 3 dimensions. That is all our brains are capable of. It is perception, not coordinates, that makes 3 dimensions.
As to the two point coordinate system of latitude and longitude. The reason it is just two points is because its working with the hypothetical given that all ponts on the sphere surface are equidistant from the center of the sphere, thus making the third coordinate zero, generally sea-level.
Incorrect.
In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line). A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude). The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces.source
Thus the surface of a sphere can be described as two-dimensional. If your brother moves inside or outside of the surface of the sphere (as measured by altitude) he is in 3-dimensional space, exactly the same as if he moved off the surface of an two-coordinate X / Y plane into the Z direction.
latitude and longitude are magnitudes of degrees. Measuring by degrees is a radial system, thus every two point degree coordinate on a sphere surface by default has a third radius dimension.
Incorrect.
What you describe as a radial system is called polar coordinates. This two-dimensional system can be used to describe any point on a plane from any other point in the form of direction (degree) and distance. What you perceive as the 3-dimensional shape of the 2-dimensinoal plane is irrelevant.
The two surface entities in question are separate and distinct topologies independent of each other, just as they would be in comparison to a flat plane or a möbius strip.
I love this conversation so much and, typical for me, I see both sides as equally valid. You could say I'm wishywashy, or you could say I'm magnanimous.*
*New argument: is liberty bell magnanimous, or just wishywashy?
just picked up a bottle of Arran single malt whiskey with a sherry finish, from cask 226. It is going to raise some good money for a good cause. Auctioning it off for a non profit. Someone is going to have a delightful bottle at their booze cabinet.
I won't put up the link. Top 10 most dangerous cities in the world:
Only 1 American city was on the list (Detroit). Others included Rio de Janeiro, Baghdad, Capetown, and the "winner" was Caracas, Venezuela. What a shit hole. Also, I saw a movie filmed in Capetown that had Ryan Reynolds in it - how can this kid who looks like a frat boy in perpetuity be credible as a top spy? At any rate, that's another corrupt pit. I once met this European lady who was very content to have moved from South Africa to a desert community in the U.S.
I don't want people getting attacked by raccoons or other animals, but hipsters and granolas aren't my cup of tea, so the headline grabbed me. They reflexively don't like me. They incorrectly assume I am the establishment.
I'm quoting myself. I spoke too soon. I helped a hipster last night, in a big way. I jump started his car. I went in to get a take-out pizza last night. As I exited the store, I saw this guy unsuccessfully trying to start his car with battery cables hooked up to an adjacent SUV. He then asked me "Is this your car?," pointing to my American car. I really wanted to get the pizza into the car and get on my way, preferring not to deal with a stranger. I had to do a quick analysis of the variables: car pulled up to the curb in front of the pizza place, nice neighborhood, daylight, hipster kid in his late 20s who was a Josh Groban-alike with some stubble and thus not likely a criminal, and, lastly, "what if that had happened to me." All right. I lifted the hood of my car, he hooked up the battery cables, and I revved my engine. His first 2 attempts at turning over his engine were unsuccessful, but his 3rd one was. I got him on his way. I felt like some priest or nun had spoken me to from above saying "help those who are not fortunate and who you may not like."
I then went home to google images of hipsters. Since he had a stocking cap, I wondered if he could have been a granola. I then saw that the hipster "uniform" can include a stocking cap.
"granola" as an identifier is a really dated term - makes it sound like you're an old person posting from the early 1990s. There is such a huge variety in diet lifestyles that you could have gone with: vegan, freegan, raw foodist, locavore, fruitarian, urban forager, etc...
also - maybe in the past year or two we've generally accepted that almost everyone between the ages of 20 and 45 is at least a little "hipster." The fact that you know who Josh Groban is makes you a hipster. Besides - the "original hipster" only really existed between 1999 and 2004 or so - everything that came afterward is what has been assimilated into general culture. people still playing the "identify the hipster!" game are just out of touch.
just to give you an example of how much "hipster" culture has permeated society - my 74 year old church-going aunt regularly rides a vintage schwinn to trader joes to buy shit like flax-seed granola - and she instragram's a "selfie" of herself eating said cereal to facebook. One of my best friends from middle school is now a pastor - he grows his own food, makes his own beer, and sports pretty impressive beard.
Well, that's about right. Granola was an 80s and 90s term and hipster came into being around the turn of the 21st century. There were relatively few granola enclaves in greater L.A. we poked fun at growing up, which have now gentrified because they were sitting on some prime land. For the most part, we pointed further northward, to the Bay Area and above, all the way to the Canadian border, for some dyed-in-the-wool granola living. People who were once hippies or granolas haven't morphed over to being hipsters. People still refer to the them as old hippies and old granolas. But, in the end, why align oneself with an identifiable moniker? If you walk into a place with jeans, a colored t-shirt, flip flops, a regular hair cut, and are clean shaven, they often won't know if you're a lawyer or a car mechanic on their day off. People can do what they want. But to sort of make a statement 24/7, even when running errands, seems kind of dumb to me. At any rate, I was a Good Samaritan last night. I guess I didn't sleep during that lesson in parochial school.
But, in the end, why align oneself with an identifiable moniker? If you walk into a place with jeans, a colored t-shirt, flip flops, a regular hair cut, and are clean shaven, they often won't know if you're a lawyer or a car mechanic on their day off. People can do what they want. But to sort of make a statement 24/7, even when running errands, seems kind of dumb to me.
I see law school in your future. You are able to extract things that are said and contort them to make a point that suits you. I still think uniforms other than work attire are idiotic. I think that's pretty clear.
@observant - in most design-y and high-level professions you are networking/marketing yourself pretty much 24/7 - this means always being presentable and essentially "making a statement" about who you are and what you're about - even if you're leaving the house for an errand. You never know when and where your next project lead might come from. so - you think it's idiotic to market yourself? in a way that's what that hipster kid is doing.
Who was the hipster kid marketing himself to? To a hipster chick? In the suburbs? And it was too hot to be wearing a stocking cap, so that wasn't too bright.
stocking cap in the summer? I thought that look died out years ago! where the hell do you live? geesh - even I sported that look back around 1999 or so (when I combined it with vintage golf shirts and my infamous sparkly blue blazer - I think I also wore a bowler sometimes - ah... art school).
yeah - he's doing some sartorial experimentation - he's learning his way. This kid will probably in a few years be wearing brogues and tweeds and riding a vintage dutch bike everywhere- at least he'll start getting closer....
I'm thinking about Saarinen's Miller House this morning. It's a masterpiece, no doubt. But it's now a house museum, and that actually distresses me. House museums are dead. The beauty of that house, and many important house, is that the inhabitants activate a backdrop setting of gorgeous design. With no inhabitants the place feels deprived.
Thread Central
I did read Flatland in grad school, which is probably why I can easily accept an imaginary being that only exists and perceives two dimensions.
Quondam, I do see what you mean by the geometry being misrepresented. In our multi-dimensional world, it is.
The point of the video was that space can be both infinite and bounded, and the example, along with the examples of toroids and Klein bottles and others I'm forgetting, helped me understand that.
But isn't the point that the 2D being would *perceive* the Mobius strip *as if it were* a flat plane, even though it isn't? And so similarly we humans can only perceive space as having three dimensions when it might actually have 10 or 20?
The table top is only hypothetically flat and could be the surface of a sphere or part of the surface of a möbius strip.
Also the line has only one measurable dimension - length - making it one-dimensional.
I saw on my homepage that Eileen Brennan passed away, either today or yesterday. She had that trademark gravelly voice. She broke into show biz but if she hadn't, she would have made a darn good cocktail waitress in Las Vegas with her street smart vibe and deep voice. RIP Eileen Brennan, who was native to Los Angeles. It's kind of like getting an architecture job in a location you like - it doesn't hurt to have gone to a-school nearby.
Far from her best, and not as gravelly as she can be, but here's a clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AubT14A-OjQ
I'm with Miles on the dimension thing. Sarah, you might find this helpful, it is a video of a high school student explaining dimensions:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGguwYPC32I
I didn't know about that book, Flatland, I'll have to read that.
i read flatland. i enjoyed it. i also read thermal delight in architecture in school. also a good read.
Q, let's assume X and Y don't have to be straight lines. they're still lines, so you're creating 2 dimensions without a 3rd. in that case, a 2-dimensional entity could exist on your mobius strip, since the mobius strip is created by folding a 2-dimensional plane. their only experience of the third dimension is from your experience of the Z axis; since they're bound to the flat surface they have no 3rd dimension of their own.
didn't einstein's theory of relativity have something to do with that? it's still a 2-d plane that was distorted. or something like that. i don't know.
Quondam, does your reference above "Flatland, summer 1978, Perry, Missouri" refer to when and where you read it? I find that detail fun within this conversation.
Hey, folks, for those who are not highbrow and could live just about anywhere, here's the list for the Top 10 states for frugal living. I couldn't live in all of these, but some. I noticed that, of the western and eastern states, only Idaho made the list. I think I would be haunted by knowing Sarah Palin came from there, so I'd pass on Idaho, parts of which are very scenic. However, of the other 9, I could do Texas (The Woodlands of Houston), Arkansas (Hot Springs Village or other piney areas, but not Little Rock, which the Clintons called home), Indiana (the capital region) and Mississippi (as long as it was Gulfport or thereabouts, and looked like the FL panhandle).
Check out the slide show:
http://money.msn.com/personal-finance/americas-cheapest-states-to-live-in
in your picture of the mobius strip, you could say the paper you made it out of is 2-dimensional if you ignore the thickness. when you bent the 2-d paper, you made a 3-d shape.
in autocad, i draft on a 2-d surface. space-time is distorted. that's the sort of thing einstein was talking about with relativity. so, autocad is newtonian physics.
if an entity existed on the 2-dimensional surface of your mobius strip, they would be 2-d. if you bent that 2-dimensional surface, it would not change the state or characteristics of the 2-d entity living on the 2-d surface. they would still be 2-d.
the summer of 1978 was pretty exciting for me. i had my first birthday around then!
That stipple is so pretty.
No, seriously, that stipple is lovely - it gives me feelings of longing. And it exemplifies "skillful dexterity or artful care" beautifully.
I love those stories. Let's keep arguing about dimensions just to keep you here posting on TC, Quondam!
I thought surely that story was going to end in afternoon delight, up on the roof, with Barbara-ann.
I drove by the St. Louis arch when I was a kid. We lived in Ohio, and visited my grandparents in Texas, often. We back through St. Louis, so I'm still not sure why we did that time. I just vaguely remember looking out the window, and climbing to my knees for a better view. Shame we didn't stop, but I'm not sure I would've remembered it much.
I've been reading a book about Graphic Arts procedures, published in 1957. I'm trying to bone up on typefaces and the like. The book is fascinating on some levels, and completely obsolete in others. They hadn't even invented computers when this book came out! I'm taking notes on the parts about typefaces, kerning, and leading (which I always read as LEEDing, and not the as learned LEDing), but I'm skimming over the parts on typeface drawers, and hand-setting type.
Lots of beautiful graphics up above.
For something absurd, a hipster was attacked by a raccoon in NY's Central Park.
http://now.msn.com/racoon-bites-hipster-mid-instagram-in-central-park-in-nyc
One of the comments appropriately asked if the raccoon was given an anti-hypster vaccine, since the hipster was given an anti-rabies vaccine. Spot on.
Man, I miss putting some emo music (usually Elliott Smith) on my headphones and stippling for hours. There was something so wonderfully relaxing and therapeutic about that constant motion of delicateness.
Quondam:
A simple example of two-dimensions: the surface of a sphere. While to our familiar outlook the sphere looks three dimensional, if an object is constrained to lie on the surface, it only has two dimensions that it can move in. The surface of a sphere can be completely described by two dimensions since no matter how rough the surface may appear to be, it is still only a surface. (wiki)
Since space is pretty much accepted as curved - introduced by Einstein with his theory of General Relativity - it seems natural that from a 3D point of view a curved surface is 3D. But to an observer constrained to that surface it would be flat. 3D space is not flat, but to us it looks flat.
It's kind of amusing seeing you argue the 2D point of view from a 3D one. And your drawing is by definition 2D, even according to your more stringent Euclidean definition as I'm viewing it on a flat screen monitor.
I have been working on a series of paintings called Event Horizon 1, 2 and 3. If they were any good, I'd post them here. Maybe I should work on them.
@observant - are you getting paid to post linkbait from msn?
@quondom - that survey drawing (and story) is lovely. thanks for sharing...
^^
No, I always read city, state, and country QOL rankings and hipsters annoy the hell out of me. So no.
Quondam:
I'm not mixing "logics", you're mixing reference points.
In basic geometry, any point on a planar system can be described by two coordinates: X and Y. The surface of a sphere has the exact same properties - any point on it can be described by two coordinates: latitude and longitude.
If you were constrained to a 2-dimensional surface - a plane, the surface of a sphere or a möbius strip - there would be no third dimension. Thus referencing the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere from the center of a 3-dimensional sphere, or anywhere not on the surface, is impossible because that dimension does not exist. It is an extrinsic point of view.
A möbius strip is not a 3-dimensional entity, it is an imaginary construct consisting of a single sided surface with a single boundary (edge). It is only the representation of it in the form of a model that you see as 3-dimensional.
@observant et al,
I happen to be family friends with the hipster from NYC who got attacked by a raccoon.
Also I will second the stippling is beautiful
Sarah,
Yes really. Kind of weird...
a 2-dimensional strip that has been twisted into a 3-d surface is still a 2-d strip.
which is still imaginary, because we perceive pretty much everything in 3 dimensions (and ignore extra dimension, assuming there are extra dimensions). on a globe, you can describe a certain point on a 2-d plane with latitude and longitude (2 dimensions). but at a smaller scale, there is a 3rd dimension (elevation above sea level, or height).
everything is imaginary at a theoretical level.
Tout est dans la tête, vous savez.
@observant et al,
I happen to be family friends with the hipster from NYC who got attacked by a raccoon.
I see. Six degrees of separation at work. I don't want people getting attacked by raccoons or other animals, but hipsters and granolas aren't my cup of tea, so the headline grabbed me. They reflexively don't like me. They incorrectly assume I am the establishment. This chick did something to provoke the attack, per the article. She could have just walked around and past the altercation between the two raccoons. We periodically have them around and I might see one late at night when pulling in. I assumed they were the size of a cat. They are much larger.
And boys, 2d or 3d, doesn't really matter. Everyone knows you really never need more than a handful.
but we all live in a multi-dimensional world even though we only perceive 3 dimensions. That is all our brains are capable of. It is perception, not coordinates, that makes 3 dimensions.
did you actually stand on a roof in the building your brother is in to make that point?
As to the two point coordinate system of latitude and longitude. The reason it is just two points is because its working with the hypothetical given that all ponts on the sphere surface are equidistant from the center of the sphere, thus making the third coordinate zero, generally sea-level.
Incorrect.
In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line). A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude). The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces. source
Thus the surface of a sphere can be described as two-dimensional. If your brother moves inside or outside of the surface of the sphere (as measured by altitude) he is in 3-dimensional space, exactly the same as if he moved off the surface of an two-coordinate X / Y plane into the Z direction.
latitude and longitude are magnitudes of degrees. Measuring by degrees is a radial system, thus every two point degree coordinate on a sphere surface by default has a third radius dimension.
Incorrect.
What you describe as a radial system is called polar coordinates. This two-dimensional system can be used to describe any point on a plane from any other point in the form of direction (degree) and distance. What you perceive as the 3-dimensional shape of the 2-dimensinoal plane is irrelevant.
The two surface entities in question are separate and distinct topologies independent of each other, just as they would be in comparison to a flat plane or a möbius strip.
Green cheese, of course.
*New argument: is liberty bell magnanimous, or just wishywashy?
Donna, you misposted. I think you want the political correctness thread.
what steven said.
morning(ish) all!
just picked up a bottle of Arran single malt whiskey with a sherry finish, from cask 226. It is going to raise some good money for a good cause. Auctioning it off for a non profit. Someone is going to have a delightful bottle at their booze cabinet.
I won't put up the link. Top 10 most dangerous cities in the world:
Only 1 American city was on the list (Detroit). Others included Rio de Janeiro, Baghdad, Capetown, and the "winner" was Caracas, Venezuela. What a shit hole. Also, I saw a movie filmed in Capetown that had Ryan Reynolds in it - how can this kid who looks like a frat boy in perpetuity be credible as a top spy? At any rate, that's another corrupt pit. I once met this European lady who was very content to have moved from South Africa to a desert community in the U.S.
Correction: add New Orleans (deemed worse than Detroit) and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where over 50% of the murders in Mexico occur.
I don't want people getting attacked by raccoons or other animals, but hipsters and granolas aren't my cup of tea, so the headline grabbed me. They reflexively don't like me. They incorrectly assume I am the establishment.
I'm quoting myself. I spoke too soon. I helped a hipster last night, in a big way. I jump started his car. I went in to get a take-out pizza last night. As I exited the store, I saw this guy unsuccessfully trying to start his car with battery cables hooked up to an adjacent SUV. He then asked me "Is this your car?," pointing to my American car. I really wanted to get the pizza into the car and get on my way, preferring not to deal with a stranger. I had to do a quick analysis of the variables: car pulled up to the curb in front of the pizza place, nice neighborhood, daylight, hipster kid in his late 20s who was a Josh Groban-alike with some stubble and thus not likely a criminal, and, lastly, "what if that had happened to me." All right. I lifted the hood of my car, he hooked up the battery cables, and I revved my engine. His first 2 attempts at turning over his engine were unsuccessful, but his 3rd one was. I got him on his way. I felt like some priest or nun had spoken me to from above saying "help those who are not fortunate and who you may not like."
I then went home to google images of hipsters. Since he had a stocking cap, I wondered if he could have been a granola. I then saw that the hipster "uniform" can include a stocking cap.
"granola" as an identifier is a really dated term - makes it sound like you're an old person posting from the early 1990s. There is such a huge variety in diet lifestyles that you could have gone with: vegan, freegan, raw foodist, locavore, fruitarian, urban forager, etc...
also - maybe in the past year or two we've generally accepted that almost everyone between the ages of 20 and 45 is at least a little "hipster." The fact that you know who Josh Groban is makes you a hipster. Besides - the "original hipster" only really existed between 1999 and 2004 or so - everything that came afterward is what has been assimilated into general culture. people still playing the "identify the hipster!" game are just out of touch.
just to give you an example of how much "hipster" culture has permeated society - my 74 year old church-going aunt regularly rides a vintage schwinn to trader joes to buy shit like flax-seed granola - and she instragram's a "selfie" of herself eating said cereal to facebook. One of my best friends from middle school is now a pastor - he grows his own food, makes his own beer, and sports pretty impressive beard.
Well, that's about right. Granola was an 80s and 90s term and hipster came into being around the turn of the 21st century. There were relatively few granola enclaves in greater L.A. we poked fun at growing up, which have now gentrified because they were sitting on some prime land. For the most part, we pointed further northward, to the Bay Area and above, all the way to the Canadian border, for some dyed-in-the-wool granola living. People who were once hippies or granolas haven't morphed over to being hipsters. People still refer to the them as old hippies and old granolas. But, in the end, why align oneself with an identifiable moniker? If you walk into a place with jeans, a colored t-shirt, flip flops, a regular hair cut, and are clean shaven, they often won't know if you're a lawyer or a car mechanic on their day off. People can do what they want. But to sort of make a statement 24/7, even when running errands, seems kind of dumb to me. At any rate, I was a Good Samaritan last night. I guess I didn't sleep during that lesson in parochial school.
But, in the end, why align oneself with an identifiable moniker? If you walk into a place with jeans, a colored t-shirt, flip flops, a regular hair cut, and are clean shaven, they often won't know if you're a lawyer or a car mechanic on their day off. People can do what they want. But to sort of make a statement 24/7, even when running errands, seems kind of dumb to me.
I think you answered your own question.
^
I see law school in your future. You are able to extract things that are said and contort them to make a point that suits you. I still think uniforms other than work attire are idiotic. I think that's pretty clear.
@observant - in most design-y and high-level professions you are networking/marketing yourself pretty much 24/7 - this means always being presentable and essentially "making a statement" about who you are and what you're about - even if you're leaving the house for an errand. You never know when and where your next project lead might come from. so - you think it's idiotic to market yourself? in a way that's what that hipster kid is doing.
Don't know what it is (full moon maybe, or surplus of fools?), but I'm feeling exceptionally snarky today. Even more than usual.
Just checked, new moon tonight. But I still think the parade of idiocy has something to do with it.
in a way that's what that hipster kid is doing.
Who was the hipster kid marketing himself to? To a hipster chick? In the suburbs? And it was too hot to be wearing a stocking cap, so that wasn't too bright.
stocking cap in the summer? I thought that look died out years ago! where the hell do you live? geesh - even I sported that look back around 1999 or so (when I combined it with vintage golf shirts and my infamous sparkly blue blazer - I think I also wore a bowler sometimes - ah... art school).
yeah - he's doing some sartorial experimentation - he's learning his way. This kid will probably in a few years be wearing brogues and tweeds and riding a vintage dutch bike everywhere- at least he'll start getting closer....
can somebody argue about dimensions again?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.