It reminds me of what I've read about 17th-c. Puritan aesthetics--that, although bright colors were shunned as sinfully frivolous, sober black that *looked expensive* (because deep black dyes that didn't fade were hard to come by) was ubiquitous.
This is 'top of the head', so forgive any lack of clarity, or confused diatribe.
Colour was always the preserve of the rich, historically. The 'poor' by definition had little and what did have was in the cheap easily made dye shades of dull brown and grey.
Times have changed. A much wider percentage of the population now has lots of 'things' under their ownership. However, unlike the rich, there are economic consequences to their choices.
The trade-in value of their Mercedes-benz. The likelihood of being taken seriously at work, and therefore promoted, if their Mercedes is in multi-reflective blues and bronze that flash with the light and change depending on the viewer's orientation to the vehicle (I've seen one).
Being a laughing stock in the office for picking 'whacky' colours - unless you're the business founder and owner - has consequences economically. Even as a founder and owner, investors might be reluctant to invest, if you look a bit 'flighty' or exhibit evidence of 'whacky' decision making.
Mercedez sell the bulk of their proposition to a professional class, so variations of 'corporate grey' are going to be their best sellers. My Merc roadster was in dark corporate grey, because it had to be. Prospective clients were only going to hire me if they felt I'd make safe, sensible, and sound decisions.
Meanwhile the rich (UK). Old Money like their landrovers in green and authentic mud brown - it's all about estate management. Old Money is struggling to maintain their 17th Century mansion and especially the East wing roof. They're ok economically, but terrified of getting into 'bother' financially and losing the family pile they've owned for generations. (I've worked for them).
New Money aspires to look like Old Money, but a bit shinier. New Money might not have the property sink hole, so more ready cash, but appearances matter. This is how the economics of Old Money expresses itself in New Money.
The 60s and 70s, here in the UK were our most colourful time. Owning 'stuff' exploded among the working class and the new class of young professionals. Owning 'stuff' was something to show off about, and a novelty. Now everyone owns 'stuff', so "Get over yourself. I have one of those, but with more bells". Showing off has become a subtle art: MacBook Pro in Space Black in the local coffee shop.
And, there was only the glossy photos in glossy magazines to reference in the 60s/70s. So Johno in accounts thought you looked a twonk, he had no mates that mattered. There were no social media, or group chat apps, where your pictures of your brightly coloured polka dot shirt could be ridiculed on a 'viral' tidal wave the boss will be shown. Starring in memes will haunt your interviews forever.
Yet another example of how when something isnt scarce under capitalism, the scarcity has to be created by some means. Like how regardless how interesting or beautiful it is, only art that has been created by a gallery-represented, somewhat well-known artist is tasteful to display. And how prints are looked down upon
Thought-provoking idea!
It reminds me of what I've read about 17th-c. Puritan aesthetics--that, although bright colors were shunned as sinfully frivolous, sober black that *looked expensive* (because deep black dyes that didn't fade were hard to come by) was ubiquitous.
That Mercedes looks pretty neat ngl
The transition from Dandy to black suits is also interesting, probably as the cost to build a full costume went down.
I'd suggest it's simple economics.
This is 'top of the head', so forgive any lack of clarity, or confused diatribe.
Colour was always the preserve of the rich, historically. The 'poor' by definition had little and what did have was in the cheap easily made dye shades of dull brown and grey.
Times have changed. A much wider percentage of the population now has lots of 'things' under their ownership. However, unlike the rich, there are economic consequences to their choices.
The trade-in value of their Mercedes-benz. The likelihood of being taken seriously at work, and therefore promoted, if their Mercedes is in multi-reflective blues and bronze that flash with the light and change depending on the viewer's orientation to the vehicle (I've seen one).
Being a laughing stock in the office for picking 'whacky' colours - unless you're the business founder and owner - has consequences economically. Even as a founder and owner, investors might be reluctant to invest, if you look a bit 'flighty' or exhibit evidence of 'whacky' decision making.
Mercedez sell the bulk of their proposition to a professional class, so variations of 'corporate grey' are going to be their best sellers. My Merc roadster was in dark corporate grey, because it had to be. Prospective clients were only going to hire me if they felt I'd make safe, sensible, and sound decisions.
Meanwhile the rich (UK). Old Money like their landrovers in green and authentic mud brown - it's all about estate management. Old Money is struggling to maintain their 17th Century mansion and especially the East wing roof. They're ok economically, but terrified of getting into 'bother' financially and losing the family pile they've owned for generations. (I've worked for them).
New Money aspires to look like Old Money, but a bit shinier. New Money might not have the property sink hole, so more ready cash, but appearances matter. This is how the economics of Old Money expresses itself in New Money.
The 60s and 70s, here in the UK were our most colourful time. Owning 'stuff' exploded among the working class and the new class of young professionals. Owning 'stuff' was something to show off about, and a novelty. Now everyone owns 'stuff', so "Get over yourself. I have one of those, but with more bells". Showing off has become a subtle art: MacBook Pro in Space Black in the local coffee shop.
And, there was only the glossy photos in glossy magazines to reference in the 60s/70s. So Johno in accounts thought you looked a twonk, he had no mates that mattered. There were no social media, or group chat apps, where your pictures of your brightly coloured polka dot shirt could be ridiculed on a 'viral' tidal wave the boss will be shown. Starring in memes will haunt your interviews forever.
Yet another example of how when something isnt scarce under capitalism, the scarcity has to be created by some means. Like how regardless how interesting or beautiful it is, only art that has been created by a gallery-represented, somewhat well-known artist is tasteful to display. And how prints are looked down upon