I thought at first that they were talking about the trend in a larger way- how it just now reached the "masses" so to speak. Though the examples they give are rather "hip" companies who've been producing natural, antler for years. It seemed like the article date should have read "April 26, 2005" or even 2006, not 2007.
I hate to seem snooty but isn't this trend at least 3 years old? I live in Dallas and read the Times every day but I've been seeing antlers here (especially in restaurants) for the past two years.
I just chuckled. It's in keeping with Times style coverage, which is usually at least a year behind... Don't you remember their intense, wide-eyed coverage of the "Blog Phenomenon," a year or two ago? Sigh.
That's funny. I've been posting some pix from my SW road trip on my blog (http://blog.kosmonaut.net) and just uploaded some a few days aog of an antler sculpture farm I passed somewhere in Utah.
I'd expect that kind of remark from a small rural paper. But seriously, in a city that prides itself on being cutting-edge, for a reporter to be this late to the game...that's just lame. Guess I wasn't the only one confused by the piece.
19 Comments:
I saw this- what the?? As if the trend wasn't OVER enough. I'm so SO SO sick of the whole look.
Mara
Antlers are creepy...
I thought at first that they were talking about the trend in a larger way- how it just now reached the "masses" so to speak. Though the examples they give are rather "hip" companies who've been producing natural, antler for years. It seemed like the article date should have read "April 26, 2005" or even 2006, not 2007.
I hate to seem snooty but isn't this trend at least 3 years old? I live in Dallas and read the Times every day but I've been seeing antlers here (especially in restaurants) for the past two years.
Odd.
Chris
over it.
Um, done? That's a no-brainer.
I wonder wht they say about silhoutte birds on branches... !
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
oh my god.
but seriously, what are we on to now, rabbits? tiger stripes??
I know! I just saw that and wonder about the validity of anything style wise they have to say now...
I just chuckled. It's in keeping with Times style coverage, which is usually at least a year behind... Don't you remember their intense, wide-eyed coverage of the "Blog Phenomenon," a year or two ago? Sigh.
style and design is what you make it as well as design. Don't understand why people are so into trends and fads.
the times is always seems to be ages behind the rest of the world
not new. and i hate the whole antler thing anyway.
don't they have their finger to the pulse? haha, very perceptive!
yup. a day late and a dollar short, buddy! antlers new THIS season? please? doesn't anyone over there read design*sponge? gawd! c'mon get with it!
That's funny. I've been posting some pix from my SW road trip on my blog (http://blog.kosmonaut.net) and just uploaded some a few days aog of an antler sculpture farm I passed somewhere in Utah.
I'd expect that kind of remark from a small rural paper. But seriously, in a city that prides itself on being cutting-edge, for a reporter to be this late to the game...that's just lame. Guess I wasn't the only one confused by the piece.
I was amused but not surprised. The NYTimes Style section is always old trends as new styles, which I find odd and disappointing.
What they probably meant is that we will be seeing it in Targets and Walmart this upcoming season. . . . .
Next week they'll be writing about prefabs and wee houses......
Post a Comment
<< Home