4 ms·

Punk rose to prominence, in part, because of their acceptance of technology. They used technology that was once the expensive and in the domain of conservative

Punk rose to prominence, in part, because of their acceptance of technology. They used technology that was once the expensive and in the domain of conservative corporations that was turned into accessible and cheap ways to disseminate ideas. Xerox machines were prominently used to create flyers for shows and distribute zines. Cassette tapes were copied and passed around to anyone who wanted one. VHS was used to record shows and distribute other media. Lowered cost for TV transmission meant not only punk was a topic that could be seen on TV but that local access shows could be used to disseminate media further. "Punk" is tied to the aesthetics of brightly colored hair, Mohawks, patches on jackets, jack boots etc. which coerces anyone who makes claims of being punk in the modern era into a anachronistic pastiche of what punk was in the late 1970s or early 1980s, with washed out "xerox effect" flyers or physical zines. Aesthetics aside, punk was primarily about a DIY ethos of using whatever tools were available to create art, discuss politics or create a scene. The modern day equivalent exists, we just don't call it "punk" because it doesn't have the aesthetics attached. You want to know what modern day punk-rock looks like? It's not emulating some juvenile interpretation of Meditations, it's standing up Mastodon social networks, using Nostr, advocating for the freedom of Julian Assange, creating custom AI models that diagnose breast cancer, pushing libre/free/open source, creating art installations with custom electronics, and on and on. There's one aspect of punk, not the whole aspect but one splinter faction, that was defeatist and pretty much dead on arrival. I only skimmed the article but that's the vein of punk rock the article seems to be channeling. Any movement that positions itself as a rejection of culture is doomed to fail, either because it fizzles out or because it becomes incorporated. The measure shouldn't be how contrary a movement is, it should be how it's trying to shape culture for the better.

anthk 3y ago
Gopher and Gemini communities with cheap Atom netbooks or Pentium III-IV/athlon era machines. At least the DIY spirit it's there.
coldtea 3y ago
The punk ethos, shortlived as it was as a mainstream culture, and a little longer lived (still short) from some totally uncommercial die-hards, was not about technology at all. Xerox was not some fancy new technology, it as 15+ year old staple at the time. Cassetes were not a thing in the punk scene at the time. They were insignificant in sales in the UK, and no mixtapes, they caught on in the tail end of the 70s, several years after the original punk movement commercialized and died "Punk is dead" came to be. Same, of course, for VHS.
- toyg 3y ago
  The disconnect between your post and parent is due to time-lapse. In the very early 70s (arguably the peak of punk as a creative force in the UK), yes, there was little or no broadcasting tech - punk disseminated slowly through live gigs and low-volume magazines in the UK. By the time it had gained significant cultural and commercial force though, particularly outside Britain, the tech mentioned had arrived. The peak of creative punk in continental Europe and US (outside NY) is arguably late 70s/early 80s. Culture transmission, back then, was slow. So you're both somewhat correct. The birth of punk was not about tech, but about self-reliance: doing your own thing, no matter how ugly or discordant (see early punk bands and their notoriously bad vocalists), fuck everyone else. It was the application of flower-power principles to urban energy-crisis nihilism. As punk grew, a generation of democratized technology appeared that could support and supercharge such ethos, to the point that (if you were not part of the original hardcore nucleus) you could easily assume the tech was indivisible from the ethos and necessary to its survival.

anthk 3y ago

Gopher and Gemini communities with cheap Atom netbooks or Pentium III-IV/athlon era machines. At least the DIY spirit it's there.

coldtea 3y ago

The punk ethos, shortlived as it was as a mainstream culture, and a little longer lived (still short) from some totally uncommercial die-hards, was not about technology at all. Xerox was not some fancy new technology, it as 15+ year old staple at the time. Cassetes were not a thing in the punk scene at the time. They were insignificant in sales in the UK, and no mixtapes, they caught on in the tail end of the 70s, several years after the original punk movement commercialized and died "Punk is dead" came to be. Same, of course, for VHS.

toyg 3y ago
The disconnect between your post and parent is due to time-lapse. In the very early 70s (arguably the peak of punk as a creative force in the UK), yes, there was little or no broadcasting tech - punk disseminated slowly through live gigs and low-volume magazines in the UK. By the time it had gained significant cultural and commercial force though, particularly outside Britain, the tech mentioned had arrived. The peak of creative punk in continental Europe and US (outside NY) is arguably late 70s/early 80s. Culture transmission, back then, was slow. So you're both somewhat correct. The birth of punk was not about tech, but about self-reliance: doing your own thing, no matter how ugly or discordant (see early punk bands and their notoriously bad vocalists), fuck everyone else. It was the application of flower-power principles to urban energy-crisis nihilism. As punk grew, a generation of democratized technology appeared that could support and supercharge such ethos, to the point that (if you were not part of the original hardcore nucleus) you could easily assume the tech was indivisible from the ethos and necessary to its survival.