>>1563085No, I'm saying that people who saw these things as "aesthetic" wanted to copy it but do so by paying for ugly shit that's usually even uglier by virtue of being designed or manufactured badly to the point there's no real saving it.
You can, for example, clean, repaint, restore an old bike to like new and make it ride well and increase in value, or you can just service and maintain it and ride it til it claps out. But an ugly hipster bike has its value to hipsters destroyed if you try to improve it.
An ugly 'weathered' piece of furniture has shitty india-quality wood and staple-joinery under the milk paint while an actual beat up antique may be refinishable.
Wearing thrift store plaid because you're poor and managing to not look like a pile of shit is an achievement. Buyfagging a "look" to emulate a person who had to struggle to figure out how to not look like shit is retarded.
The aesthetic of someone who had to make do it's in the pile of crap but in that it shows a level of achievement that's lacking from someone who just solves problems by throwing money at it
