Welcome to Gaia! ::

I am inclined to agree that discussion without trimming off the excess leaves is possible, but most often what you get when someone says, "this is steampunk", a not uncommon response is, "no it's not."

@Cylrya: I believe what I was trying to say was that at the end of your statement, you paraphrased my view in a concise manner.

Despite the fact, that art is continuously questioned, and strong parallels can be drawn to steampunk, I question the conduciveness to questioning it at all.

Without boundaries, there is more free movement. Art does not demand questions at all. Art is simply there. Just as steampunk is simply there. The quest to understand concepts which are probably better left not understood is a fruitless endeavor. I don't think there is any need, and is perhaps even desirable to refrain from discussing steampunk at all. Being art, an aesthetic, or simply a fantastical concept it doesn't require an explanation. All it needs is to exhibit and display. To bend the mind and open it to new possibilities. Defining is the art of closing those possibilities.

My stance is that it is useless, unhelpful, or even perhaps stupid to try and discuss something that should not be defined.

@Planck's Constant: Very interesting indeed. It never occured to me that Steampunk could be used as a brand... satire on todays excesses. Very interesting.

@Halo Fauna: Welcome to the guild! Thanks for the 2 Cents. We would certainly appreciate further input.

I think I can see where Loki is coming from, but I sense that at least a portion of the question he asks posits that 'Questioning will inevitably lead to pigeon holing, for it rules out what it can not be, thus establishing a certain status quo and artistically confining what should be un-confinable' (if I am wrong, feel free to correct me). I posit however, that the opposite is true: only through continuously questioning can we avoid stagnation of our sub culture... or subculture to a subculture to a subculture... or... whatever.

Let us pretend that we were indeed, voted by our fellows to be a 'Council of Steampunk' with the purpose to figure out where exactly we were going with this. This question would be ongoing, always questioning as new ideas are inserted.

I remember from my days as a belligerent punk puritan, when I would be conversing about out my favorite bands at the time. Let us use this as a parallel. Take a punk band... I'm going to choose the band 'the Dead Kennedys'. I think there should be no extended debate required to prove that they are a punk band. Suppose that a person of a young and impressionable age enters the discussion and posits that the band 'Nickelback' is a punk band. Well, I can say they clearly contain some elements of punk music, but are not punk rock. The question than remains "What makes punk punk."

Art is a continually flowing and evolving entity; it changes in reaction to external forces (take the Surrealism of Pablo Picasso and the Spanish Civil War as an example), as an individual takes exception with the established norm. What I, and others who want to understand the philosophy of steampunk, are doing by questioning our art, is pursuing a deeper meaning to our art. Figuring out what ideas we want to incorporate into it.
In the future, people will look at our art and imaginations, and react to it. We are not saying that art that is not steampunk is inferior or lamentable, we are saying that art without ideas is empty, and without questioning our ideas we are blind.


Why do I favor muddled answers?

I don't know how the discussion became this complicated. My answer still remains the same and is the first post I posted in this thread.

If I want to think Nickelback is punk, then I will think Nickelback is punk, regardless of what someone else thinks, and I don't care about any manner of discussion or debate the goes on about it.

@Mylian: I speak only on experience. Most of the discussions I've seen about steampunk have had the result of closing off the concept to others. Honestly, I can't stop people discussing, and I don't intend to. I only suggest that no one take these discussions seriously if they don't wish to.

If by popular majority you all agree that the Western/American concepts of steampunk are not valid steampunk for it does not aspire to Victorian ideals, that I for one could care less, and I'm still going to call it steampunk, and I'm still going to tell everyone I know it is steampunk, and I don't give a damn about what everyone else thinks. Therefore I think that these discussions are usually unhelpful, pointless, and sometimes even harmful from a psychological view if people begin to gang-up on the unfortunate free spirit who doesn't abide by their jurisdiction.

But if you can discuss about what else to include into steampunk, then I'm all for that. Discuss away.

On a similar, and perhaps more relevant note, Loki has sparked one such thought to me: The preconception that 'Steampunk' is simply the aspiration to Victorian norms. This to me negates the world outside of Europe in which many equally, if not more important events occurred. I mean, if we are really just aspiring to Victorian norms, women should be removing their ribs to aspire to victorian norms of beauty.
But I think that is what makes Steampunk 'punk'. We are not rehashing the ideas of the past, we are applying an attitude of defiance that was partially not present at the time. We are not siding with the society of the time, we are not just putting on victorian dresses and goggles to be pretty (though that remains an element), the steampunk rebels against the past because of how it has reflected the present. We do not side with the society girls who put on makeup and ate like rabits; we are with the Woman marching alone through the streets fighting for Equal rights because their struggle for justice warrants our support, we stand with the Black Slave in the field because the oppressor is omnipresent today.
Neo-Victorianism is Neo-Victorianism and Steampunk is Steampunk: we have our similarities, and we are in many ways, a reaction to each other, incorporating some of our mutual ideas, but ultimately different. Neither is inherently superior or inferior. The Neo-Victorian is satisfied to imitate the dress of the period; this is itself an admirable pursuit of the elusive 'beauty' and warrants praise. That is subjective; what path to take.