Why does the aesthetic of the 1920s feel more modern than later

>>1495155
>feel
Happy choice of word.

>>1495155
DOesn;t if feel more dmoden>

File: Deco-in-Film8.jpg (180KB, 709x418px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 709x418px

>>1495155
I think that ads like the one in your photo and most media of the time were aimed at pretty much only the upper-middle class or in many cases just the upper-classes. The 1920s bourgeoisie and upper-classes were a lot more urbane and "progressive" than the working-classes and middle-classes of the post WWII-era. In the boom years after WWII, parts of society that would have previously lived hand-to-mouth and would have been illiterate or had very basic education began to have disposable income and an appetite for the consumption of information. The media just re-adjusted their approach to accommodate the culture of these classes.

You can sort of see a similar example in how the quality of television programmes and the assumed educational level of their viewers increases with every decade you go back in time. The reason being that poor people couldn't access TV back then.

P.S. It's not just the 1920s. The Roaring Twenties as they were called may have been particularly progressive but look at how high-brow and progressive the culture of the Belle Epoque was.

File: Treno Blindato, 1915.jpg (497KB, 1515x2000px)

497KB, 1515x2000px

The 1910s and 20s were the zenith of modernity.

File: 657px-R-26_-_New_Year_1946_Card.jpg (110KB, 657x1024px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 657x1024px

>>1495234
Basically what I'm saying is that culture of this kind didn't die out, it just became more obscure and received less media attention.

Look at R-26 for example. Began in the 1930s and was very much part of the culture we're talking about and continued all the way into the 1980s.

>>1495276
Forgot my link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-26_(salon)