Subculture Movement Gaining Steam(punk)

For those who have missed out on the resurgence of the steampunk movement of late, “steampunk” is a reimagining of the world today and the future, if things had taken a different slant during the industrial revolution. If, instead of moving toward computer and digital technology, we had continued down the path of cranks and levers, gears and the true “machine” toward alternate ends, we might have ended up with what steampunk imagines. Wikipedia explains it thus:

“Steampunk is a sub-genre of science fiction, alternate history, and speculative fiction that came into prominence during the 1980s and early 1990s. Specifically, steampunk involves an era or world where steam power is still widely used—usually the 19th century and often Victorian era Britain—that incorporates prominent elements of either science fiction or fantasy. Works of steampunk often feature anachronistic technology or futuristic innovations as Victorians may have envisioned them.”

It started as a literary reference, and is often credited to sci-fi author K.W. Jeter as used in the ‘80s to classify a group of authors who wrote science fiction that repurposed the ideas and styles of authors like H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. While some are rigid in their observations and creations – inner workings must often conform to standards with no trace of current technology – many steampunk enthusiasts are content to re-customize and imagine current objects with a Victorian face. Clocks and visible gears are common. Materials more often take advantage of the element of copper than silver. Pipes are worn on the outside. Proponents dress in altered Victorian couture, flight goggles, and leather (a la the Rocketeer) - not necessarily in the same outfit, though! - and create projects such as a television screen that looks like a Victorian stage complete with red velvet curtains, or an Etch a Sketch with a copper-plated face and Wellsian knobs.

Sometimes retro machines are discovered on the quest for simple machines (levers, pulleys, etc.) that display the steampunk aesthetic without any alteration, such as the Singer Slant-O-Matic, displayed by Meredith Scheff on the Steampunk Workshop blog site. According to Jake Von Slatt, the blog’s proprietor, “[W]hat we do in Steampunk is joyfully rip things out of context and re-mix them to our own desire.” I think this is an apt description of the movement’s mission, and as a neo-Victorian myself, I love to discover what the SPs are creating across the Web whenever I need a touch of inspiration. This write-up is not exhaustive and I am no expert, but I continue to be fascinated by the inner workings of this DIY movement. Check out the links below for more info.  I hope to hit some of their events and Cons this year to see more of the inner sanctum.

Get in gear at some of these steampunk Web spots:

http://www.steampunk.com/

http://www.steampunkworkshop.com/

http://www.steampunkmagazine.com/

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/01/maker_profile_steampunk_on_make_tel.html

Coping With Intertextuality

According to artandpopularculture.com, "Intertextuality is the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts. It can refer to an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text or to a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another." 

Intertextuality in all its forms has always interested me, from its literary theory incarnations to clever allusions in current and past TV shows and movies.  The device seems to be expanding in use in popular culture, in its allusionary aspect especially, and becomes a fun sort of interactive game we can play as viewers of film and television programming with our ever-shrinking attention spans.  The game is based on a "who can get the most inside jokes" premise, and can demonstrate intelligence, awareness, or simple dominance of trivia that puts us "in the know" and recreates us as masters of our domain, to reference a Seinfeld contest of an entirely different nature.

Parody can be a form of intertextuality, though I wouldn't consider SNL to be intertextual as much, considering the entire show's premise is based on parody.  The Simpsons and Family Guy are more along the lines of intertextuality, showing an awareness of popular culture that works its way into the storylines as clever references.  Or when a movie character refers to himself in some former character incarnation, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger in Twins with the line, "I'll be back."  The USA show Psych is one of my new favorites for this literary device, with recent episodes focusing around Twin Peaks (which included the self-aware parody of the former cast of the show) and It's a Wonderful Life.

I mention this ironic use of intertextuality only to point out how creatively our culture has adapted to the speed and flood of options within the pop culture sphere.  We probably have to make fun of ourselves and our past viewing habits just to make sense of the whirlwind of influences, and having a healthy dose of ironic appreciation for it all helps us connect the otherwise unconnected randomness that infects many other areas of 21st century life.  Many theorists compare intertextuality to hypertextuality, an idea that is also explained further on artandpopularculture.com, in that the interlinking of texts by reference is similar to the way we read and interact on the Web.  I push this idea further in that the community-building on the Web that is defining the current marketplace and social sphere is accomplished through visual media such as TV programming and movies via intertextuality.  We build communities through our different levels of understanding of these "links" to our own popular culture habits, and feel a sense of belonging when we "get" it.  It's a way of connecting beyond our increasingly isolated physical lives and a healthy and enjoyable coping mechanism for modern detachment.  Community-building in any form, Web or otherwise, is good for our psyches and our culture.  I say, "Bring it on."  Minus the cheerleaders.

Chuck Klosterman, Hugh MacLeod and the Culture of Culture

I've been trying to remember author Chuck Klosterman's name for a week now (sorry Chuck), as I was attempting to chronicle in my head all the wonderfully urbane treatises on modern culture I have read in recent years.  It finally came to me, albeit in pieces (first the Chuck, then two days later, the KIosterman) as I looked up another gem of inspiration - by gapingvoid.com blog author Hugh MacLeod, called Ignore Everybody: And 39 other Keys to Creativity.  Love this book.

For some reason that may be related to the wit and pop culture references of both authors, I was reminded of Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman. They are not exactly similar in subject matter.  Klosterman waxes not-so-poetic but with insight and a healthy sense of satire about popular culture like MTV's the Real World and other such generation-affecting media influences.  And MacLeod writes about ways to get your "big idea" out into the world without being tainted by the outside forces that always affect us when we're trying too hard.  Not even close to the same subject matter, and yet....

MacLeod and Klosterman both have a sort of "the world is ridiculous so be ridiculous in it on your own terms" sort of vibe, and while MacLeod is inspiring people to take their creativity to the next level, I personally am also inspired by Klosterman's form of genius.  Like a Seinfeldian book-about-nothing that is the creme brulee of dessert theories on Western culture's "finest" offerings - the Sims and cereal mascot wars among them.  His stream of consciousness rants on everything that inspired us as Gen X youth (despite the tired argument that Gen Xers are anything but inspired, Klosterman shows that the opposite is true, and that our healthy sense of irony is still intact even after surviving Saved by the Bell.

And as I visited Klosterman's (book publisher) web site, I saw that he put one one out in 2009 called Eating the Dinosaur, which is apparently about reality (or not) and the way the media and pop culture affect that reality (or don't).  Anyway, check out the page for yourself.  I'll be picking it up soon for sure.

Craftology: Brief Musings on Indie Crafts and Media for Change

I found the most beautiful fat quarters (quilting terminology for 18x21" squares of fabulous print fabric for those not in the know) at Michael's on clearance recently.  Pink, beige, green, black, mod, with ovals and rings and little pink retro kitties - not all on the same fabric, of course.  It got me thinking about the rules of design, the art of the handmade, and the resurgence of traditional crafting methods in contemporary culture. 

One of the best sources of info on this topic right now is the documentary Handmade Nation: The Rise of DIY Art, Craft, and Design, by Faythe Levine.   The blog devoted to it is right here on Blogger.  Levine traveled across the country with companions, documenting the sewing circles/terrorist societies (kidding) and "craft mafias" started by groups of indie crafters in their local areas.  These groups have turned into forces of cultural change, reintroducing the art of the handmade, taking pledges on their web sites and blogs to buy nothing artificially manufactured whenever possible, and creating entire online and in-person communities - with accompanying craft shows that draw spectators and participants from across the country - around various revamped crafts like embroidery (now embodied by portraits of Iggy Pop by Jenny Hart of Sublime Stitching), knitting, collage, and more. 

The topic's been done of course, but I never tire of discovering new crafters on etsy, finding new patterns on craftster.org, looking up new methods of creative re-use, or seeing what lines have next been blurred in the age-old art/craft debate.  I'll post more on this topic later, because there's always more to say.  In the meantime, if you're into the DIY thing, check out two of my favorite books on the subject: PAD: The Guide to Ultra-Living and Craftivity.  Make your own decor to fully express yourself in your living space.  Try the Barbarella TV cabinet (PAD).  It's super fuzzy.

Does Refusing to Choose Keep You Stuck?

Refuse to Choose

Still obsessed with the self-help, as always. I almost wrote my master's thesis on self-help books, but then I got obsessed with BUST magazine's influence on the youth rebel faction and the indie crafters' morphing of traditional craft values and went in a whole other direction.  Anyway...my readings of late have been related to the next steps in my career path, as I moved to NC without a job, brave little me, and I'm finding all sorts of wonderful opportunities here in the Triangle.  But I want to explore my passions and find the best direction to go with my skills, which are in writing, editing, marketing, and PR.  These can be used in any field, so narrowing my focus by interest level is going to help. 

At the moment, I'm diving into books about renaissance soul types who have many interests, two of which are by Barbara Sher, a well-known author of books on choosing a career or life direction that will make you happy.   Sure, I joke myself for reading books that say I can do anything I want, especially in 10 easy steps.  But hey, what if any part of it is true?  Let's just consider it a cultural experiment and I'll keep you posted.

Check them out - the author's actually very reasonable, not at all dreamy or new agey.  The tomes are not about living your bliss, which Sher believes can't be sustained.  They're about finding ways to do what you love and support yourself, creating contentment rather than bliss.  Ok, I can probably do that.  Bliss is overrated anyway.  The big issue is the exercises.  I never (never never never) do the exercises.  Can't help myself.  Can't make me do 'em.  I guess that's why I'll never succeed at refusing to choose, or not choose, or...whatever.  Self-help makes me feel worse sometimes.  But regardless, I get a bit of a boost from these two little helpers.

Refuse to Choose: Use All of Your Interests, Passions, and Hobbies to Create the Life and Career of Your Dreams

Live the Life You Love: In Ten Easy Step-by-Step Lessons

In Defense of Gen X

I don't mean to sound petty here, but I'm getting a little weary of the newsbites that seem to be giving all the credit for revolutions in the workplace, technology, and the way we live to the "Millennials."  As far as the media is concerned, it seems that Generation X was and always will be the "slacker generation," who never contributed anything.  The Millennials are the drivers of innovation, the ones who grew up with technology, the ones who have "Hope for Change" and got Obama into office, the ones who volunteer and make philanthropy an integral part of their lives. 

We got skipped.  And it bothers me.  IMO, the Millennials (no offense, I know many wonderful Millennials and they and their hope are vital to our growth as a society) continued what Generation X started.  They have that hope because of the changes we stood for in our own rowdy way.  Gen X were considered slackers because we didn't like the rules.  We were disruptive and insubordinate.  We had to sit back sometimes and figure out how to create lives we liked rather than following antiquated behavioral patterns just because it had always been done that way.  But disruptive and insubordinate is how change gets made, how revolution happens.  Who bashed the "ME" decade and started up the green revolution started in the sixties again, the one that had been abandoned by hippies turned yuppies in the 80s?  I participated in sit-ins at my high school.  My friends cared deeply about the state of politics and were the ones who tried to get a 3rd party system going by voting for Ralph Nader back in 2000 to break down the status quo.  Movies that broke with tradition, like Kevin Smith's slacker series came out of Gen X.  So did Adult Swim on the cartoon network - the epitome of irony and innovation, though probably considered stupid by boomers.  Look at Seth McFarland and the Family Guy.  Political and cultural satire at its best.

We grew up with technology.  I wrote my own programs in Basic on my Dad's Commodore Vic 20.  We had a home computer from the time I was 6.  I played Atari and the original Nintendo. We didn't get the Internet till 1994, but I was only 18/19 then and college was a whole new ball of wax.  I know, I'm whining, but it's not always so much fun being labeled a generation of slackers.  Makes you want to continue your perceived behavior, flipping the bird at anyone who looks at you sideways.  Which is probably why the characterization stuck.

Not your Momma's Life Path

I've been thinking a lot lately about how to design that balanced life.  There's probably no such thing, but to be able to spend all the time you want to with your family, to feel accomplished and purposeful (but not burned out) in your work, to have time to pursue enriching and creative hobbies that fulfill you, and to be healthy and shape your life in harmony with the planet instead of always battling it - these are things that should be possible in the 21st century. 

And they are to some - I read their blogs, pick up their books, see them on TV, occasionally even run into them in real life.  They're out there.  I think what they all have in common is that they woke up one day and said, "This is crap.  I want out."  And then they got out.  Not of life, but of that entity, that thing, that feels foreign to us every day and keeps us from living out our dreams. 

It's not about quitting your job and taking off to join the Peace Corps, necessarily.  Or living on an island in the Caribbean and fishing for your food every day.  But with all the tools and technology at our disposal, we ought to be able to fashion a life worth living out of the raw materials we have.  Something with balance and integrity and community.  "...a new reality, closer to the heart," as Rush says (the supremely talented band, not the opiate-popping mouthpiece of conservative idiots).  I'm going to keep working on my blueprints.  Contact me with any suggestions.