Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have to disagree with you, Loki. Obviously there is some set of common threads pulling people together under the banner of Steampunk. I disagree with the assertion that, because Steampunk is not a concrete term, there is nothing to be gained from discussion of these common ideals and philosophies.

I don't quite understand how I'm being childish or where exactly we disagree. All I'm saying is that steampunk can be punky, and I personally like my steampunk to be that way but that it doesn't have to be.
It can be what people want...

Considering that you actually got my point at the end, I'm not going to disagree with you.

I very much disagree that discussing what steampunk is will only serve to divide people. It's just a Guild on Gaia, for starters. We are not the end all and be all of steampunk. This is a hobby that for most of us exists only in the realm of intellect, and it would be a shame to stop debating and discussing it.

Every time we discuss some aspect of steampunk in this Guild, there are always people who chime in to tell us that, that band is not steampunk, that dress is not steampunk, that machine is clockpunk, etc. I think these can create healthy debate that might encourage people to be less selective about their definition of what is steampunk, rather than encourage the rest to narrow their own definition.


I'm sorry, but now I'm confused about what you even think punk is.

I don't understand how you can claim that the punk movement is not anti-establishment, anti-materialist, and anarchist in nature. Steampunk very well may be whatever you want it to be, but punk is a political movement, with defined dogma and goals. Yes, there are several kids who shop at Hot Topic and who put safety pins in their clothes and arms who call themselves punk, but that doesn't mean they are, since it is an established thing. True punk is mostly dead, and the scene kids today are not punk.

If you're not even defining punk by it's traditional and historical standards, then I suppose by your definition, steampunk is punk, but it's because you're looking at only the aspects of punk that are loosely compatible with steampunk and ignoring what punk actually is and means.

You call steampunk "activism of imagination," but what do you really mean by that? Activism is about trying to change the social or political status quo. I have yet to encounter any steampunkers who have a goal like that. Change it to what? What could we try to change social and political standards to that would in some way reflect steampunk?

Coupling the word with the word imagination makes even less sense. You can't radically change the status quo of what people imagine, because it is already a limitless field. If you mean that steampunk enthusiasts should try to share their imagined worlds with others to replace the ones the others may have had, that's even worse. That's not activism, and is actually the antithesis of imagination.


I think this is pretty close to the truth, especially in terms of how steampunk evolved from cyberpunk.

It occurred to me before I opened this window and read your response that perhaps the first point of this discussion is not whether Steampunk is punk, but what is 'punk.' I have already defined punk for you, but I shall do so again, perhaps more coherently. First: A Brief History of Punk.

Punk is at it's conception, mindless rebellion. Punk as a movement is the brainchild of Malcolm McLaren and Vivian Westwood. They owned a store which made/sold clothes in London called 'Sex'. McLaren (after a stint of managing the New York dolls) perfected the art of 'Shock Value'. Thus 'punk' as the movement began, purely as a ploy to make money: that is/was/always would be McLaren's primary motivation (this is proven after
a poorly done attempt my McLaren to materialize Hip Hop in the 1980's. For further evidence of this, please read the book "Can't Stop, Won't Stop" by Jeff Chang).
Of course, punk has it's precedents which were a good deal more authentic and less materialistic: the Velvet Underground and the avant-garde art of the 60's, notable Andy Warhol, the Garage Rock of the 60's and 70's, the first invasion of Glam Rock with its excesses, the Skinhead movement of the 60's and 70's, but the first punk bands in England were all loosely related to the Sex Pistols (the Clash, et al) who were managed by, yes, Malcolm McLaren.
For all of their sneer and scream, the Sex Pistols were a marketing ploy; Sid Vicious was a tool encouraged by McLaren for media attention. They were Shock value. And we should remember that 'Punk' may have been inspired by the Ramones in England, but in the southern united states, such as California, it was the British bands that brought 'punk music', and created their American equivalents in California. Remember that it is only in hindsight that we say "Punk had it's precedents from the 60's" but all the trappings of punk (the homemade 'zines, the literature and poetry) were initially inspired by the music, and the music was inspired by an attitude. From here the story continues with the downfall of punk music, and the resurgance of 'American Hardcore' music, which originated in California. It is the Hardcore-Punk philosophies that we as Steampunk's, who trace our lineage from the imaginations of the 'Cyberpunks' who were themselves reactions to the Hardcore-Punk movement of the 1980's, owe our ideological existence.
The Hardcore Punk of the 80's itself originated in the streets of California before spreading across North America. Hardcore (as the original punk was) was the bastion of the Alienated by society. Where the first wave of Punk was artificially political (and anyone who truly believes that the Sex Pistols were genuinely anarchists, is itself a mockery). Being 'Anti-Establishment' and being 'Anarchist' are completely different notions. In California punk bands, strains of Fascist were equal with Anarchist strains, and they continue to be today. Nazi-Punk bands are common, and are 'Anti-Establishment', but not Leftist oriented.
Much of this history is a generalization, but I lack the energy right now to look through my tomes of Punk for quotes and evidence, so for all intents and purposes, let us say wikipedia is my source (though I use many more)Punk Ideologies. Punk is not a purely 'leftist' movement.

Now that that tirade is over, I think I have sufficently proven how punk began as a money ploy (and therefore not anti-materialistic), how our anti-establishment tendencies are not inherently 'Anarchistic'. Punk became anti-materialistic over time (due mostly to the American Hardcore movement, and it's English equivalents such as 'Crass'), and it remains only nominally Anarchist, as far to say as there as many Neo-Fascist, Communist, and Apollitical Punks as there are Anarchistic punks.

Do not confuse me as trying to say punk is materialistic. But this leads me to the first universal rule of 'punk'. We are as materialistic as our capabilities or imaginations allow: this is of course, the ethic of DIY. It is this ethic which wrote the zines, made the music, wrote the literature, the idea that anybody could do it. That is the first universal tenet.
The next tenet I would cite to punk is that one must educate oneself.
Finally, I would say, the tenet of punk is that we must love what we are doing, because our art is an extension off who we are.

To me 'punk' is nothing if it is not the child of defiance and courage; the defiance to say that our world is not as is should and could be and the courage to stand behind that expounding my own individual vibrancy which we all possess. I do not need to live on the streets, or wear studs and listen to the Casualties to be punk. Punk is a way, not of life, but of thought.

I know very little about punk, so I'm not going to get into that discussion. xp

I think it boils down to, there is no correct or incorrect. At least it does so with me. Your view is as good as any, and you are entitled just as everyone is entitled to have their own view. What they are not entitled to is diminishing someone else because their view doesn't correspond with their own definition.

I think you're making an assumption that any discussion will inevitably exclude people, when this simply isn't the case. A discussion of this nature does not by its own inherent nature need to be aiming at a single concise definition of the category.

I agree that arguing and pigeonholing would tend to stagnate the spontaneously creative nature of Steampunk. But I strongly disagree with your apparent assumption that discussion of the creative aspects of the commonalities of those who call themselves Steampunk must inherently define and isolate.

In other words, I believe that it is entirely possible to say "this is Steampunk" without being forced to so much as imply that "that is not Steampunk".

Firstly, I am new to the guild, so hello.

Secondly, I believe Steampunk is fairly punk. At least it has punk elements that real punks (that are not just punk because it's "cool" or "different") hold. The sense of community that exists, the rejection of mainstream ideals, and of course the DIY ethics are all parallels. There are more punk things about Steampunk, but i don't really feel like going into it.