Thursday, January 19, 2012
I understand why people use this phrase, but I just disagree with the premise. For example someone might comment that teenage girls are now starting to wear leg warmers with their skirts, which as we all know was as style that was very popular in the 1980s. So, it isn't surprising when someone utters the cliche that what was once old is new again, but in reality legwarmers aren't new. The style of wearing legwarmers isn't new either, so really there is nothing new about it.
This is just a matter of people revisiting an old style, but simply revisiting something does not in any way make it new. If that were true, I'd be driving a new car every morning when I head to work. So are we to believe if you do a specific act each day it becomes old, but if you wait a few months or a few years and then do that same thing again that it is new? Hogwash.
Listen... things can only be new once. Anything after that point is old. I know this will pain many 40-something women out there who are starting to see gray hair and wrinkles when they look in the mirror, but it isn't meant to be mean. It doesn't matter if we are talking about items, people, or styles... old is old, and new is new. There is no such thing as old becoming new just as new cannot be old, so adapt and get over it.
Another thing that bothers me is this stupid word "renew". You cannot re-new something. It was once new... and now it is old. If it was new yesterday you might argue it is almost new today (which holds up a lot better if you are talking about a car as opposed to a ham sandwich), but you can't just "renew" everything and pretend it is new once again. It might be new to you, you might find a new way of looking at things, but if something existed or was done at any time in the past, it just isn't new anymore.
I renew magazine subscriptions... does that mean the magazine is entirely new? Of course not! Although that particular issue of the magazine might be new, the magazine itself, and the subscription to said magazine is not new... so is it really possible to re-new something? Not really. The term re-new is just a fancy way of selling us something again without letting us know we aren't really getting anything new.
It all comes down to the fact that we as humans have a desire to have new things. Whether they are really, truly "new", or just "new to us" doesn't seem to matter. In fact many people collect antiques that they know are old, but they don't refer to them as old things or used things because that doesn't sound as nice as the terms vintage, antique, historic, or whatever label they choose to use instead of simply saying they are old. So, we somehow are tricking ourselves into thinking these old things are actually new, and we use colorful language to make the differentiation in order to appease our own minds.
So now it all makes sense. I realize not everyone feels the same way, but I have a new way of thinking about things. Or is that an old way of thinking about things?