|05-10-2023, 06:57 AM||#11 (permalink)|
Join Date: Apr 2019
I think the simple way you frame things with your question is a bit biased.
The way I see it:
Fact 1: Punk is a youth movement that was born in rejection of the establishment.
Fact 2: The establishment has a lot of very-well-ordered-little-boxes where it reduces, trivializes and merchandises everything. One of those little boxes is the term "fashion".
So the establishment took a "snapshot" of how those angry young men and women looked, and turned it into yet another of its well-ordered-boxes. It also took the name and turned into a brand, "the name you know". But that's not punk anymore, it's devoid of any content.
The simple notion of "fashion" is something reactionary: trends that come and trends that go, a mechanism created in order to leave room to the "next hot thing". This is capitalism's usual logic, build to dispose (so that you can build the next thing and charge for it, then dispose again, etc).
Punk was not conceived as a "trend" it was a living, real protest against an exhausting world. Young people were ignored by society, victims of poverty, without a center around which get together... Musicians were an "aristocracy", Genesis and Yes with their 8 minute solos, the young punks said pick a guitar, learn 3 positions, sing about something that pisses you, now you have a voice.
One of the expressions, of the byproducts of that angst and rejection towards the status quo, had to necessarily be clothing, just because human beings get clothed and the protesters were human beings. It was DIY because of the sparse means, and also in an attempt of being self sufficient and not buying the "uniform" they were all bombed with from magazines and billboards (now computer and cellphone screens). Their clothes were dictated by the same philosophy that made them create their own fanzines or record labels. It was just another statement of that disgust for the social state of affairs, a gesture of rejection (I don't need you and your force fed "normality"), and also it had some practical applications (e.g. spikes in a jacket as a way to make some room from the massification, what better way to let *******s know that they better leave you alone).
So, in summary, I guess there's no "punk fashion". If you find "punk" as a drop down menu in Amazon... that's not it. You first live the ideals of the punk movement, and then your dressing code will "flourish" accordingly to that. It can mean a lot of things, and it can probably mean something totally different for two different persons, i.e. not something that big capital can cookie-cutterize.
My opinions are usually quite unpopular and I hardly ever express them, but you were going for quantity, so...
|07-28-2023, 05:34 PM||#13 (permalink)|
Join Date: Aug 2017
I like the idea of punks just wearing their normal street clothes to perform. It's supposed to be no bull**** and a reaction against the concept of "performance" in mainstream rock or pop music. The mock preppie thing you see sometimes is funny though.