(a) I’ve long felt that there was value in a collection of critical reviews of culture focusing on works at least ten years old. How many times, after all, do annual awards go to films, discs, books that seem pallid and faddish a few years later? Why does the literature of reviews have to concentrate on recent works, such that the benefit of seasoned judgment often lies buried under avalanches of instant reviews? So — since I’ve recently come into some server space — I’m thinking about going ahead and starting a blog-like collection of reviews of long-past cultural production.
(b) But what would be a good title (and more urgently, a good un-taken domain name) for such a site? “Retrospection.org” is available; if I wanted “retrospective,” I’d need to register is as a “.ca” domain; “retrospect” is taken across the board. What am I missing?
Posted by AKMA at June 11, 2004 08:18 AM | TrackBackThat's a terrific idea.
And if it's going to offer critical assessments, perhaps retrogradebook? ;)
Posted by: steve at June 11, 2004 08:31 AMretrospect is a backup system.
everything that gets old and still shines is 'golden', 'silver', or something.... have you noticed that..... they are also classic.
retro to me is faddish unless it is retrospective.
recoveringthegreats.com or something could be worthwhile in some recombinant form.
Posted by: jeremy hunsinger at June 11, 2004 08:41 AMHmmmm. . . . “Retrorespect” is available as dot-org and dot-net; “Retrorespective” is even available as dot-com. . . .
Or “Ourbackpages” or “Retroview.” I like having “review” in there somewhere.
Posted by: AKMA at June 11, 2004 12:07 PMAlthough I can't help with the domain name question, I would like to say something about "retro=faddish."
What I've observed, at least in "retro" automobile design is that designers have taken some of the best lines, best themes of previous automotive classics and updated them, usually making them much better, in my opinion.
The Chrysler PT Cruiser isn't a retro-remake, but takes its cues from the forties and fifties and creates a fresh and I think enduring new design. I'd love to own a PT Cruiser, and I may yet one day.
Volkswagen's take on the Beetle is also very attractive and I think it will endure as well.
Ford's look back at the Thunderbird was nice, but it didn't seem as compelling for some reason; but I still like it a great deal.
Chevrolet's new truck, or whatever it is, isn't such a hit I think. I could be wrong about that, I haven't seen any sales figures, but I don't see a lot of them on the road either. I don't even think it'll qualify as a "fad.'
But I think there's nothing wrong with taking classic designs from the past and bringing them up to date, perhaps eliminating some of the worst blemishes on the originals.
Posted by: dave rogers at June 11, 2004 12:31 PMI nominate Second Opinions. Your description can set out the scope (e.g., critical review of 10 year old works).
Posted by: Don at June 11, 2004 03:01 PM