I’m probably just out of the loop, but what the hell is up with slapping “Punk” after some random word and trying to pass it off as a thing?
I know cyberpunk, I know steampunk, I know solarpunk, and those I can accept as “more than an aesthetic”, tho steampunk is mostly an aesthetic… but then you have for example frostpunk (a game I know nothing about), cypherpunk, silkpunk, etc. (I don’t really know how to find other bastardizations for examples, but I know I’ve come across other random nouns followed by “punk” and I find it super weird and confusing)
Is it just capitalizing on the cyberpunk/steampunk fad for naming, or do these other “punk” things actually have a legitimate claim of being punk? Is all this ___punk watering down the meaning or am I old man yells at cloud meme here?
Typically speaking in the aesthetic sense, _punk means taking a certain look to its extreme. Cyberpunk of course infusing everything with computer technology, steampunk infusing everything with the looks of a steam powered machine, etc.
Starfield was described once as having its aesthetic “NASApunk,” which sounded really cool to me when I heard it. I expected white and black, gold foil, etc. Which isn’t really how the end product ended which was a bit disappointing, but the point remained that calling it “NASApunk” had me immediately expecting a certain aesthetic.
In the case of Frostpunk, I am not sure. It takes place in a frozen world, but it doesn’t have an aesthetic to fit that name so it may just be a title.
I think with Frostpunk specifically it’s meant to be more like a portmanteau of Steampunk and Frost, because the vibes in that game are definitely built on the Victorian/Coal power/industrial revolution era aesthetics.
When I think of __punk, I think about it having a whole -way of life- change, not just an aesthetic change. Cyberpunk incorporates all of the dystopia of deeply embedded tech and stuff. Solarpunk is the whole “living with nature” ideal, even steampunk had to reimagine how things would work (tho admittedly that’s way more of an aesthetic than the other two imho).
So it’s basically a meaningless term then? That’s disappointing. I really want to explore other… hypothetical options I suppose.
It’s not meaningless, it’s just evolved into signifying an aesthetic/lifestyle different from the norm. English is a living language, so many words change in meaning over time
I don’t know, crustpunks were a real thing.
What’s preventing you from exploring hypothetical options like Furrypunk, Meatpunk, Tallowpunk, PharmacyPunk, Leatherpunk, or Candlejackpu----
I probably have explored furry punk to some extent - any game/cartoon in which the main character is a non-human animal technically counts for that, I should think. Bonus if they are anthropomorphized. But it’s not called furrypunk afaik, or I’d probably throw that in too.
Beyond that I have no idea what those things even would be. Tho the current state of the US is very meat based so I think you’d have to go vegpunk on that one, at least where I’m at, for it to be an alternative option.
Never
I agree that the word punk came to be associated with aesthetics, almost exclusively. But that is very far from where it started, and it is frustrating for those who started it to see it coopted like this. The association of the word with anything other than anti-consumerism is just " branding" at its worst.
I didn’t say anything about how it started, I said what it means as it pertains to aesthetics, which was what I felt was the primary root of the question.