Tuesday is Shopping Day.

DrJoolz is pleased to announce, that by popular request, she offers advice re online shopping.
This will be a regular Tuesday feature for you to mark in your diaries.
And of course there will be a commentary to help you UNDERSTAND what kind of process you are getting involved in.

OK, so let's begin by getting retrospective .....

One could do a great deal worse than start our journey with Pulp Vintage

Everything about this site is truly sumptuous, from its temptatious picture postcards to its glorious 'item of the week' feature. Divinely, this week there is a superb orange trenchcoat, which I know all you budding Private Dicks out there will want to get your hands on.

....But hang on a moment ... shouldn't we get

TEXTUAL?

How can we resist considering the CULTURAL DISCOURSES?

It is not just interesting because suddenly the word 'retro' has entered common parlance, pretending we have always used such a word with ease. Certainly this word 'retro' has helped us to no longer view something as simply 'old fashioned' or 'out of date'. It has an altogether more edgey nuance; one is at the heart of something pulsating, if one is being 'retro'; it shares a relationship with those in the 'alternative' scene. (Which also begins, I think, with an initial nuance, a frisson of (illusory) consumer emancipation; an escape from market targetting - swiftly followed by the capitalist kill.)

Frankly, what we are talking here, is kids wearing clothes like their Mum and Dad USED to wear (- but now know better). And isn't that a bit weird? "No! It's NOT. It's retro!" I hear you cry.

The word 'retro' imbues items that were fashionable a decade ago, with up-to-date signification. It is about giving things a 'modern spin'. 'Retro' as an abbreviation of 'retrospective' seems sophisticated; it tells us that we are looking back at the past with an understanding of the present and how things turned out. It is therefore ironic. We know where the fashion went from that point, we are knowledgeable, we are being 'retrospective'. In fact, I think it might all be a teensy bit SMUG. (It compares strangely with 'retro' architecture - which is somehow not done ironically, but nostalgically; there is a notion of how the past was better, grander, of higher quality and workmanship, somehow.)

So. We transform the cultural discourses of the fashion of previous decades, (by discourses in this instance, I mean clothes) and give them a modern frame. As this paper explains we are teaching old brands new tricks.

How do we do that?
Well, we take the clothes and we surround them with a hype and a sense of fun we make them seem folksy or cute. Take this site. I just adore it; (the poodle skirts and party goods are best I think). The cleaned up version of the 1950s make it seem as if the people were all like children.

The whole pulp vintage site is fab, from the accessories, to the houseware and certainly the books to the lingerie and dresses all make the shopping experience fun, managing to saturate every mode, every sign wih the 'retro' stamp. The authors make it seem as if the people who wore this stuff in earlier decades were cutesy and innocent. And for us to wear them is a great kind of escapism too.

Is it smug? Or are we in a nostalgic space here? Or is it just all another cynical marketing pitch?

YOU DECIDE.
But the best way of knowing, is to join in the consumer fest. (Participant research).

Finally, I love this site reminding us of the wealth of styles, but also that people used to make lots of their own clothes.