I have to note that the “steampunk” aesthetic (though not the name), as a consciously “retro-futuristic” vision (as opposed to old SF pioneers whose vision was simply futuristic for their own time) was known well before any of the now-ubiquitous digital devices. See for example the Space 1889 role-playing game (published in the 1980s) with its Victorian ether-propeller ships to Mars.
Now this is an intriguing comment, and of course a fun reversal of the Clarke maxim. I’m going to think about this some more.
I think heathen earthling nailed it, for my steampunky friends, anyway. We’ve been raised in an era where you really can’t *tinker *with much. You can’t fix a broken cellphone, you buy a new one. Most of us can’t fix a car, we take it to a mechanic who hooks it up to a computer. It’s a culture of whizzbang technology in what *things *can do, but it’s made people impotent. With steampunk, there’s the playacting that we can build things (and for the hardcore, they actually do build things, although they’re decorative things around today’s whizzbang digital technology) and they’ll do something we - not remote faceless corporate employees or computers - made them to do. It’s the power of creation and holding power over our gadgets, rather than being passive consumers of them.
And there’s something viscerally satisfying and fascinating about hardware. Software lets us get stuff done and we appreciate that, but hardware is fascinating. And steampunk is pretty and opulent and just cool, so yes, Der Tirhs is right, too - it’s an aesthetic thing as well as a power thing.
Right, but that requires training and interest that most of us don’t have. We really appreciate the efforts of those of you who do, but it doesn’t take nearly the same level of commitment to get some brass gears and a hot glue gun and make something *look *cool.
Steampunk. Yes, those pictures tell you all you need to know, because it’s a phenomenon of style, not substance.
Don’t worry about that. The OP claims to know almost nothing about steampunk, either. It’s an interesting style & hobby. Some of the folks are even interested in expanding the “traditional” steampunk attitudes beyond a perceived Whites-only nostalgia for Imperialism. (Darn, just missed Aetherfest in San Antonio!)
I just read the article in wikipedia. I’m amazed it’s been around so long. But if that’s what you kids are into these days, I guess that’s fine. Just stay off my lawn, is all I ask…
Count me with those who say this is a fandom/aesthetic movement, and has little if any social agenda. In my experience people who are into steampunk are also very into modern technology, they aren’t Luddites at all and aren’t whiny spoiled rich kids either. A good friend of mine from college who studied costume design is now involved in the steampunk scene. She’s been trained as a corset-maker and also made Victorian-inspired jewelry as a hobby, and was happy to find that there was a market for these skills among steampunks.
I also make jewelry and have seen steampunk elements in jewelry supply stores and even mainstream craft stores like Michael’s, but this really seems like just another trend without any kind of social or political meaning behind it.
I am not saying it has a deliberate social agenda. But it is a reflection of the society. Rock music didn’t have a deliberate social agenda either but it’s still the subject of intense academic and sociological study.
This thread has been absolutely fascinating to me…
A lot of steampunk DIY stuff is things like casemods, usb-stick recovering etc. There’s no way that reflects a negative view of digital tech. As has already been said, it’s mainly a reaction to the aesthetic appearance of mass-market tech and a desire to produce (and have) unique things, handmade things.
I always think the steampunk DIY ideology was neatly pre-figured by a bit in Gibson’s Idoru, where a protagonist discusses how her personal computer is handmade by a commune in Oregon (“Sandbenders”), and each one is unique, with wood and/or metal cases and customized interfaces.
A lot of rock music actually does have a very clear and deliberate social/political message. If you think it doesn’t then your exposure to rock music must have been very limited.
Neither I nor anyone else here has said that steampunk is unworthy of scholarly attention, but you don’t seem to be conducting a sociological study of the subculture. You’ve made an assumption about what motivates steampunks, and people here are telling you that this assumption is incorrect. People who are into steampunk generally seem to like modern digital technology just fine. In fact, they like it so much that many put considerable effort into decorating their digital devices.
Incidentally, a quick search on “steampunk” in Scopus gives me seven results, six from publications relating to design and/or technology like Surface, Blueprint, and Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Proceedings. The seventh is from Science-Fiction Studies. Looking at other databases I get similar results. Steampunk seems to be of interest to academics either as a science-fiction subgenre or as a design movement, one that often involves customization of computers and other digital technology.
I don’t think this is correct. I think that it’s based on what people think of as Jules Verne’s images. but they’re wrong.
For example, Verne’s Nautilus was a featureless torpedo-shape, which makes sense – it was streamlined (and so were the real submarines of Verne’s day).
Even the silent film version of 20,000 Leagues featured a pretty torpedo-like submarine. It wasn’t until the 1954 Disney version was made, and designer Harper Goff felt that it wasn’t visually interesting “You looked at it once and you saw it all” he is supposed to have said. So he designed a fanciful craft with exterior touches, [i’LOTS* more rivets than any previous version had, and lots of victorian bric-a-brac inside. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/NautilusByWikiFred.jpg
This, I think, was a defining moment in Steampunk. After thuis, depictions of Verne’s craft were less starkly plain utilitarian, and more loaded with Victorian gingerbread.
as Der Trihs properly noted:
Filmmakers glommed onto this with a vengeance. Not only Verne, but also Wells’ science fiction stories, when adapted to the screen, got all that vuisual flair we now associate with Steampunk because it’s visually interesting (and because it sends a very different message than more recent technology would). So the Time Machine in George Pal’s version looks like it would fit in a Victorian parlor, and the interior of the Moon Sphere in First Men in the Moon is filled with Victorian furniture.
It’s not that Verne and Wells’ works weren’t ilustrated with any style – there’s plenty of overblown victoriana in the old illustrations. But their craft tended to be pretty spare and utilitalian, by and large. Our “Steampunk” vision of their creations are mainly a more modern creation.
(Although the illustrations of “The Terrible” from “Master of the World” are pretty wonderful examples of what might be proto-steampunk.)
You and I have a different view of “actually work”. From what you are saying, this stuff doesn’t work, it’s just putting some irrelevant fooferoll decoration on something that works. I have a very classical rather than romantic (per the Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance definitions) worldview and from that view this just seems like steampunk is complete frippery.
ISTM the difference isn’t one of training or commitment, it’s an issue of whether it’s a matter of style or of substance. Making something work in software may require training and interest, but so does making something work in brass tubing, cogs etc. I’ve always had hobbies that involve making mechanical things, and I dabble in software and electronics. They all involve training and commitment. You can get into software cheaper and easier than steam: the latter involves far more and more expensive equipment.
ISTM the steampunk phenomenon is not a reaction to ubiquitous digital technology, it’s a reaction to the current styling of devices.
I think you may be right. I will add though, a thing I noticed in some of it…
In steam “centric” things, you have a machine that does one thing. And it does it WELL. None of this “we do everything and do it as poorly as possible”. Also, you don’t have to wade through menus and sub-menus and tiny icons. You pull a lever, you throw a switch, DONE.
In the movies, maybe. Unless the plot requires otherwise.
But then in the movies computers usually work immediately and without pesky bugs or complex menus or incompatibilities, too. Unless the plot requires otherwise.
In reality steam age things required shovelling coal and long startup times, and then adjusting valves and then it probably worked unless something burst or broke or stuck.
It’s a fad, like many others in popular culture that pop up every few years. Then the ad-agencies pick up on it at some point and the consumerist drones eat up anything they see or hear from the media mass feed, like mindless automatons for a few more years until the fad goes away.
You don’t think fads can reflect genuine social changes? You don’t think fads can be reactions to certain elements of culture that people are unhappy with?
Even if steampunk is a “fad” - and you haven’t proven that it is - most of the replies in this thread seem to be in agreement that steampunk is a reaction to something, even if it’s not the same thing that I theorized in my OP.
The idea that it’s a reaction to the technology around us not having “personality” makes sense to me.
A fad is a temporary social behavior that is observed in a large group of people for a relatively short time.
Your term “genuine social changes” was incomplete and undefined. Saying it may be a reaction to cultural elements that people are “unhappy” with, makes it even more vague and meaningless.
It’s a temporary pattern, a fad, that has no value or importance.
You know what, you’re such a great sociological genius, I’m going to have to bow to your expertise. You’re right. Steampunk has no value or importance whatseover. All the people who spend countless hours, dollars and imagination designing and building every steampunk device and costume under the sun actually don’t care about it at all.
Pet rocks were a fad. “No nukes” was a fad. One is most probably of no value or importance. One says a whole lot about the values and beliefs of those who engaged in it. “Fad” does not mean fluff, although fads may be fluffy.
I think steampunk is somewhere in the middle. It’s fluffy, yet also speaks something of at least some of the values of those who engage in it.
