Appearance is a silent protest. A person may not say anything at all but their outward appearance can symbolize some inward rebellion or it can make a statement. It is clear that the punk rock image started out as a form of protesting societal norms and I think that it was not very effective. The people that joined the punk culture often wanted to make some statement about politics, sexuality, gender stereotypes, or commercialism (all of which make noble causes for a protest, I think). However, the punk followers consistently imitated their leaders who were in fact muscians (i.e. the Sex Pistols or The Velvet Underground). I think that was the most entertaining aspect of the trend, it was not about the music or the talent, it was more about sending a message of rebellion to "the man" or to the older generations (parents). It is apparent that teens weren't too concerned with the quality of the music or singing, they were more concerned with the message and fitting the image of a punk rocker. I think this way of thinking still presist today because my younger brother tries to fit into this sub culture, but I know he does it just be a part of a group. I know that he does not actually know what he is protesting or why he is protesting, in fact I don't even think he realizes he is part of a "protest." I think he grows his hair out because he knows my parents hate it and he wears the clothes he does because he wants to look "tough" or fit in with his friends who all look the same. Then I remind him that he chooses his image so that he won't be conforming but in fact he looks just like evey other "punk rock/skater."
The other problem I have with the punk rock "protest" is the unclarity of the protest.
I honestly don't think that half of the fans actually knew that Poly Styrene (from X-Ray Spex) was singing about consumerism not sadomasochism in her song "Oh Bondage!" I mean really it's hard to know that the singer is protesting consumerism when she uses bondage metaphors while dressed in bondage garb. I respect that Styrene wants to make a political statement but I think her method is too misleading or too easily misunderstood. I think effective protests have a clear messages and lead to some positive action or change. I don't see any positive results of the punk rock "protests." I saw more people fight conformity and society as a whole more open to accepting different looking people but only in certain cities (New York, San Francisco, and London). I think there is a difference between rebellion and protest. I think that punk rock is somewhere lost in between the two ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with your comment that most kids today are only dressing and acting the way they do in order to fit into this "punk" crowd. I think this crowd is very strange and should act like everyone else in the world and obey authority figures with respect and not rebel against things they don't even know about.
Christa (and Bridget), I would agree as well that the kind of fashion that signifies a "punk" identity has become something that people wear to fit in with a community rather than to protest anything. It does seem to me that when these movements first started, those that chose to dress as punks had more of an agenda. However, I would also argue that in the 70s and the 80s, what they were doing was more revolutionary than it is today, simply because people have gotten used to seeing these fashions. Or - that those who used to wear these fashions are now parents with children, with a different set of values from those held at the time that they were teenagers.
What you mentioned about how half of the people didn't even know what the songs were about reminds me of how my mom always complains about today's music - she says you can't understand what anyone is saying, therefore it's not real music. I'm not going to argue for or against that, but it's interesting to see how little arguments against some forms of music have changed.
Post a Comment