Come on, New Zealand... (A Rant)

[The Corsair]

So last weekend I attended another Steampunk event hosted by Auckland city's MOTAT (Museum Of Transport And Technology). It was a fantastic event and I had a great time doing things like attending my first LARP and crawling through a small dark space wearing a waistcoat a size too small.

That said, there were still many disappointing moments. It seemed that without some of the 'figureheads', if you will, of the Oamaru crowd (where Steampunk largely kicked off in NZ) there was less of an air of 'Steampunk is this and only this' but there was still a bit of over-definition of Steampunk, which is still something I find tremendously frustrating given the fact that I'm used to BG's 'Can't define it, just enjoy it' way of operating. The Oamaru lot seem to be the ones getting the publicity too so the media is getting the wrong idea entirely, but that's another rant entirely...

Now the issue seemed to arise more in that people seemed to think I wasn't a Steampunk there because I didn't 'look' Steampunk. I was wearing plain black pants, a plain black shirt (long sleeved), a black and blue tie (the 'Langsdorf' style, which has existed since the industrial revolution and was used because it was easy to wear and would last a whole workday) and a very dark blue waistcoat. Now this is not the most elaborate outfit nor is it exceptionally out-of-place in modern society but, at least as far as I'm aware, it's still in-period under the broad time-umbrella of Steampunk. People didn't seem to be aware of the fact that the outfit wasn't what I would wear day-to-day and that I had worn it specifically to be Steampunk.

Perhaps the most annoying thing about that was that there were people wearing essentially the same thing with the only difference being a pair of goggles or a top hat or a bow-tie. In fact the only difference between me and one bloke was that he had a cane. This baffles me enormously. it suddenly seems that in terms of dress an outfit is only Steampunk over here if one has the right accessories (granted the women don't have this same issue really, but that's probably because ladies fashions then and now are so intensely different).

So why is it that we as a national community, who are by no means alone in this world, seem to act in a way so contrary to this enormous international (including the online side) community?

[Capt. Dirigible]

I can understand your frustration but sometimes an accessory is all that's needed to change a whole outfit from one thing to another. For example..imagine a man in a black silk top hat,  long black frock coat..dark blue brocade waistcoat..high collar shirt..maroon silk cravat..narrow legged but smart black trousers and black boots (either ankle or knee high). Now..what is this guy? Is he a smart looking Goth?...Is he a steampunk? Is he a re-enactor?..a Neo-Victorian?

Now take the same guy in the same outfit and add a pair of brass goggles to his hat and Bang! He's steampunk!...Give him some black eye liner, black nail polish or a bat/skull  shaped piece of jewellry and  clearly he's a Goth.
There's a very thin deviding line..which somethimes get blurred...with certain groups and it's only the accessories that tell them apart from a glance.

[Mr Peter Harrow, Esq]

Dr Geof's 'What Sort of Punk Are You?" springs to mind.

[James Harrison]

Now..what is this guy? Is he a smart looking Goth?...Is he a steampunk? Is he a re-enactor?..a Neo-Victorian?

He could be 'all of the above'.... some of us like to be sartorially 'ambiguous' (or ambitious, inspired, indecisive, awkward or just plain 'doing it wrong' according to individual opinion). 

[/quote]
There's a very thin deviding line..which somethimes get blurred...with certain groups and it's only the accessories that tell them apart from a glance.
[/quote]

Very true.  Not going in for accessories to any great degree, I'm usually mistaken for a Chap. 

[Lady Chrystal]

...

So why is it that we as a national community, who are by no means alone in this world, seem to act in a way so contrary to this enormous international (including the online side) community?

It may be scant consolation, but we experience exactly same sort of narrow views over here. There are many people who assume that they are right and anyone who differs is therefore wrong.

Some are born different, some achieve difference and some have difference thrust upon them.
Thankfully, there are places (like BG)where that's seen as a good thing.
 
I'm sure you looked dapper and I don't know any of the others for comparison, so I care not for their opinions. 

[Mr Peter Harrow, Esq]

If someone is telling you, you are doing it wrong, they are.

[MWBailey]

The tendency to use accessories to define the genre probably springs from the early fascination in SP with gadgetry, crafting, and the wearing of the accessories that made crafting possible/safe/both; that is to say, goggles, magnifiers, various types of gloves, and the like. Over time this grew to include persona-specific items such as tools, weaponry, jewelry, etc.; the main difference in accessories between genres seems to derive from the kind and/or style of accessories, as suggested by Cap'n Dirigible among others.

I commonly dress "in period" for dulcimer society performances in accordance with event rules (mainly drawn up according to or inspired by SCA guidelines in the main), but often add a steampunk/goth-y twist by including my Willsons goggles and/or the watch and chain with the jade skull on it. Not much of a difference, but enough that people 'in the know' can tell, and people who are 'not in the know,' and are sticklers for realism and periodicity won't go all hissy-wonky over it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Contrary to what many self-appointed 'experts' will tell you, they did have both goggles and shaded-lensed glasses back in the 1830s-1890s. Confusingly, however, the common statement that "they didn't have sunglasses back then" is actually true -- they didn't have anything called sun-glasses, but heavily-tinted lenses for shading the eyes in bright light (and incidentally for persons with ailments such as syphyllis and other diseases) date back to Benjamin Franklin at least, and goggles for protecting the painful effect of bright light from brazing and other types of torches, not to mention from flying particulate and shavings (particularly from lathes and the like) date back to at least the 1850s.

[Mr Peter Harrow, Esq]

Zzzz

[MWBailey]

Zzzz

JAB!

Wake up, you.

[Alfaya]

Now the issue seemed to arise more in that people seemed to think I wasn't a Steampunk there because I didn't 'look' Steampunk. [...] People didn't seem to be aware of the fact that the outfit wasn't what I would wear day-to-day and that I had worn it specifically to be Steampunk.

Perhaps the most annoying thing about that was that there were people wearing essentially the same thing with the only difference being a pair of goggles or a top hat or a bow-tie.

If you consider it necessary, you can always try to explain to these people the background of your clothing. If not, just ignore them. At least this is what I think

The tendency to use accessories to define the genre probably springs from the early fascination in SP with gadgetry, crafting, and the wearing of the accessories that made crafting possible/safe/both; that is to say, goggles, magnifiers, various types of gloves, and the like. Over time this grew to include persona-specific items such as tools, weaponry, jewelry, etc.; the main difference in accessories between genres seems to derive from the kind and/or style of accessories, as suggested by Cap'n Dirigible among others.

Another interesting issue is the existence of 'Steampunk archetypes': air pirate, dandy, mad scientist, etc, etc, etc.

[The Corsair]

If you consider it necessary, you can always try to explain to these people the background of your clothing. If not, just ignore them. At least this is what I think

The thing is, that background would only be 'I got the waistcoat from a friend, had to buy the pants for work' etc as I dress up Steampunk and go as myself. I don't try and go as a character (and good god it's annoying when people assume I should and do have a character)

[yereverluvinunclebert]

I think that New Zealand would be a good candidate for the first country to fully steampunk. It has enough Victorian buildings to form the central core and a serious number needing rebuilding...

The built-up area is not a big one (in comparison to the UK) and the job would be smaller as a result. Definitely do-able.

A machine such as this would be required:

A very large block, of say 65 tons hoisted aloft above roof height with hydraulics. The whole contraption movable under its own power with wheels that direct it over and around the New Zealand built up residential areas. A 20th/21st century building is selected at random. The device stops on the chosen bulding, horns blare and the buildings intended destruction is announced, a 5 day delay being the standard period for removal of occupants and belongings. A cheque for $50,000 is deposited (literally) for the owner to commence rebuilding in the steampunk style along with a full set of uniquely styled plans for the new house. When the five day period is up then the block descends, crushing the building. The block is then raised and the device moves on to the next randomly selected building. Several of these devices initiated at the same time in separate areas of Auckland would result in the steampunking of the city within 10 years.

I suggest you form a political party based upon the ideas of compulsory beautification in the above manner.

[Alfaya]

I don't try and go as a character (and good god it's annoying when people assume I should and do have a character)

Neither do I, I don't have any necessity to have a 'persona'. When talking about the background I was thinking about explaining that your choice is historically accurate and so on. I think that this is one of the best ways to prove your interest in the field.

[The Corsair]

Ahh, they view Steampunk as 'Victorian sci-fi' though, not as history. It's something that gets me riled above all else with the New Zealand community. I can justify what I wear historically and they will quite blatantly say, with straight faces, 'I don't see how that makes it Steampunk'.

[helios]

Insofar as I can tell, people are dicks.

[S.Sprocket]

The last Steampunk event I went to I was wearing modern tennis shoes, a pair of levis (perhaps the only thing on my body that could have a case made that they are from the 1800's but not this cut...), and an anime T-Shirt.

No one said a thing.

In the end as I talked with them I realized I knew more about Steampunk than they did and they kept asking my opinion on everything.

As someone said above me, if someone is telling you how it's done, they don't know a thing about it. 

In San Diego CA I know there's a lot of frustration with people who are Steampunks, and the costumers that seemed to have co-oped their culture from them.  The only solace I can give people who are plagued by those who think you need to look a certain way to be Steampunk is this:  Hasten the next "big thing" and the hipsters will flee steampunk like 1970's clothing.  Only then, will we be able to enjoy our culture.  That being said, we'll probably loose a lot of venues as well.  Perhaps we should be careful for what we wish for.

[Mr. Boltneck]

Another thing that cracks me up is the people who insist, in the face of all logic, that steampunk is not only period neo-Vic, but that this means dressing as either a gentleman or officer. Yeah, because the age of steam was entirely populated by people in tails and toppers... It's not wrong to do so, but it's hardly the only solution.

[Narsil]

I think there's certainly a reasonable argument that while the costume, props and accessories aspect of SP is one of it's most easily recognisable and immediately attractive features this stuff is the icing on the cake rather than the conceptual core of it.

[S.Sprocket]

Narsil hit it on the head there.

[Narsil]

I think it's also possible to draw a distinction between what you might call the style and substance of what you choose to wear.

For example a substance based approach might be to wear well made leather boots, and sturdy tweed clothing not because it's authentic but for the same reasons that it became standard in the first place ie that it's comfortable, practical and hard-wearing.

On the other hand you might admire the style of Victorian high society but not much fancy having a tailors bill which is more than your rent and having to employ someone just to manage your wardrobe and as a solution reinvent they broad design cues in a more modern interpretation or indeed just pick and choose the elements you like without feeling compelled to adopt the whole ensemble.

Neither interpretation is better or more valid than the other but it is probably safe to say that, in the modern age dressing 100% authentically as a well off Victorian would be a massive undertaking for anybody without a serious amount of spare time and money on their hands.

It's easy to forget  that the upper echelons of Victorian society looked sharp not because they had better taste in those days and people are too lazy now but because they spent huge amounts of time (admittedly often other people's) and money on achieving it.

It is sometimes said that the modern male evening dress is a very egalitarian garment because it's the same for everyone rich or poor and is no reflection of wealth. This is rubbish the whole point of 'standardised' formal dress is that it throws how much you spent on it into sharp relief with no means of hiding the basic quality of materials an manufacture 9much easier to hide with more flamboyant styles).

Designer jeans, t-shirt and leather jacket look pretty much the same as the same outfit from a charity shop, compare a saville row suit and one from Asda and the difference is pretty obvious.

[Alfaya]

I think there's certainly a reasonable argument that while the costume, props and accessories aspect of SP is one of it's most easily recognisable and immediately attractive features this stuff is the icing on the cake rather than the conceptual core of it.

+1

[James Harrison]

I think there's certainly a reasonable argument that while the costume, props and accessories aspect of SP is one of it's most easily recognisable and immediately attractive features this stuff is the icing on the cake rather than the conceptual core of it.

Exactly!  Quite, quite true.