RESEARCH ENTRY, 4th May 2010-Punk and Attitude
For my first research entry in reference to my chosen punk subculture I have looked at the Don Letts documentary film Punk: Attitude. This documentary is useful for a non-punk person such as myself in determining what punk identity is or means, and what the cultural context was like when the punk movement originated. Chronologically, through interviewing members of the influential punk bands and more, the progression of punk is shown through the bands and their influences, to what punk might mean in society today. Someone who wants an in-depth historical and academic overview however, may require further research than this documentary. Still, the documentary helps to explain the media relationship to the punk subculture. In fact, the media itself coined the term 'punk' as a label for the subculture, and as Daniel Wojcik says in his book Punk and Neo-Tribal Body Art, 'demonized [punk]...stereotyped them as folk devils that threatened national morals and social order. (Wojcik 7). The fact that there are documentaries existing in mainstream media today about punk relays the fact that media was rather interested in the punk phenonemon, and has indeed changed the way of punk today.
The documentary presents many different perspectives from its interviewees on what 'punk' means. Among them are punk as being a fight against complacency, doing what you want and not caring about commerciality, a philiosophical way of thinking, or even being the 'real punks', as Steve Jones and Chrissie Hynde believe, through their uniting front against the government. Legs McNeil of Punk Magazine says that punk essentially started with Marlon Brando, the rebel without a cause, showcasing how it is the rebellious attitude of punk that is at its core.I would like to borrow a definition from Roger Sabin of punk for the purpose of this blog: 'punk was/is a subculture best characterised as being part youth rebellion, part artistic statement...[that] stood for identifiable attitudes, among them: an emphasis on negationism...a consciousness of class-based politics..and a belief in spontaneity and 'doing it yourself'. (Sabin 2-3).This definition can now be used to examine the documentary and the relevance of this definition today.
A strong aesthetic image is generally associated with the traditional punk stereotype. The documentary traces this dress and style back to a shop in London, 'Malcom and Vivian's dress shop'. Punk members back in the seventies would thus go discover style, and, as Chrissie Hynde says, punk would not be like, or look like, what it did if it wasn't for thier shop. It also explains the bricolage and homology aspects of punk, which are the looks that unify the subculture and make them identifiable, as punk members take aspects from 'mainstream' culture and appropriate them in a unique way. As mentioned in the documentary, often punk artists would need safety pins to hold their clothes together as their lower class status may have prevented them from buying new clothes. The irony is that this branched then out to fans and punk members who would often purposefully rip their clothes, so they could also use safety pins and there started forth a homology for the punk identity.
For my first research entry in reference to my chosen punk subculture I have looked at the Don Letts documentary film Punk: Attitude. This documentary is useful for a non-punk person such as myself in determining what punk identity is or means, and what the cultural context was like when the punk movement originated. Chronologically, through interviewing members of the influential punk bands and more, the progression of punk is shown through the bands and their influences, to what punk might mean in society today. Someone who wants an in-depth historical and academic overview however, may require further research than this documentary. Still, the documentary helps to explain the media relationship to the punk subculture. In fact, the media itself coined the term 'punk' as a label for the subculture, and as Daniel Wojcik says in his book Punk and Neo-Tribal Body Art, 'demonized [punk]...stereotyped them as folk devils that threatened national morals and social order. (Wojcik 7). The fact that there are documentaries existing in mainstream media today about punk relays the fact that media was rather interested in the punk phenonemon, and has indeed changed the way of punk today.
The documentary presents many different perspectives from its interviewees on what 'punk' means. Among them are punk as being a fight against complacency, doing what you want and not caring about commerciality, a philiosophical way of thinking, or even being the 'real punks', as Steve Jones and Chrissie Hynde believe, through their uniting front against the government. Legs McNeil of Punk Magazine says that punk essentially started with Marlon Brando, the rebel without a cause, showcasing how it is the rebellious attitude of punk that is at its core.I would like to borrow a definition from Roger Sabin of punk for the purpose of this blog: 'punk was/is a subculture best characterised as being part youth rebellion, part artistic statement...[that] stood for identifiable attitudes, among them: an emphasis on negationism...a consciousness of class-based politics..and a belief in spontaneity and 'doing it yourself'. (Sabin 2-3).This definition can now be used to examine the documentary and the relevance of this definition today.
A strong aesthetic image is generally associated with the traditional punk stereotype. The documentary traces this dress and style back to a shop in London, 'Malcom and Vivian's dress shop'. Punk members back in the seventies would thus go discover style, and, as Chrissie Hynde says, punk would not be like, or look like, what it did if it wasn't for thier shop. It also explains the bricolage and homology aspects of punk, which are the looks that unify the subculture and make them identifiable, as punk members take aspects from 'mainstream' culture and appropriate them in a unique way. As mentioned in the documentary, often punk artists would need safety pins to hold their clothes together as their lower class status may have prevented them from buying new clothes. The irony is that this branched then out to fans and punk members who would often purposefully rip their clothes, so they could also use safety pins and there started forth a homology for the punk identity.
The documentary begins with presenting pre-punk bands that the documentary claims were the influence for the punk movement: The Stooges, The Velvet Underground, which included Lou Reed and Andy Warhol, MC5, and then onwards to The New York Dolls, who introduced glam rock, Suicide, and more. All these bands are given large tribute to the punk movement. As Jim Jarmusch of the documentary says, it is important for iconic artists to upset things. The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, in the Birmingham School of the UK had theories of punks based class distinctions, as 'subcultural style was ritualistic deviation from the natural order' (Rogers: 17). As shown in the documentary, these artists certainly 'upset things', and deviate from the 'natural order', from Elvis's moving hips and sex appeal, to The Sex Pistols cursing on national television. Another example is as the documentary explains, when Malcom McClaron was working with the New York Dolls, he invented a good way to 'upset things', and showed their political rebellion by referencing communism in their performance by making things on stage red thus trying to 'irritate people'. As David Johansen from the New York Dolls mentions, communism in the United States at the time was like 'child molesting'; a horrible crime, and sadly, the Dolls had their career fall down after that. Perhaps it's the lower standards of censhorship these days, but nowadays even on national television shows, cursing is much more acceptable, and sex appeal and insinuations are often almost a requirement with popular culture artists these days. All of these exemplars illustrate that punks must think of other ways to stand out and make a statement these days, and i think it's harder in contemporary society.
Soon after the Dolls' fall out of the limelight, there opened up new opportunities when the club CBGB's, or Country and Bluegrass Blues, came about. They had a policy that bands must play original songs, and thus started the flow of artists debuting their music, often those that had been influenced by the Dolls and their predecessors, such as Television and notably The Ramones, neither of which, according to the documentary, were liked very much to begin with, before The Ramones' their short-lived and sped up songs became classic punk examples.
Back when punk started making a riot and was in its prime, it had a politically oppositional discourse running through it, as punks were in disagreement with the government's decisions, and the direction that society was heading. As an example given in the documentary, when MC5 wanted to create a parallell white party for the Black Panther party at the time. A very political statement is made with The Sex Pistols and their ironically titled song 'God Save the Queen', mocking mainstream government values. Are these political values of punk as prominent today? Several of the interviewees on the documentary convey the belief that punk isn't the same today, in its music sense at least, in that most bands now want to be part of the establishment, rather than against it. But punk may be alive in different outlets, such as art and films. Michael Moore's films for instance, are a punk type film. The media is also responsible for another outlet of punk as the interviewees say: the internet. It takes on this label because the internet has global music distribution, and hencefoth the record and music conglomerates lose power. Importantly, on the internet there is, more than ever, the do-it-yourself punk attitude, as self-promotion is much more accessible t with things like myspace band pages.
Back when punk started making a riot and was in its prime, it had a politically oppositional discourse running through it, as punks were in disagreement with the government's decisions, and the direction that society was heading. As an example given in the documentary, when MC5 wanted to create a parallell white party for the Black Panther party at the time. A very political statement is made with The Sex Pistols and their ironically titled song 'God Save the Queen', mocking mainstream government values. Are these political values of punk as prominent today? Several of the interviewees on the documentary convey the belief that punk isn't the same today, in its music sense at least, in that most bands now want to be part of the establishment, rather than against it. But punk may be alive in different outlets, such as art and films. Michael Moore's films for instance, are a punk type film. The media is also responsible for another outlet of punk as the interviewees say: the internet. It takes on this label because the internet has global music distribution, and hencefoth the record and music conglomerates lose power. Importantly, on the internet there is, more than ever, the do-it-yourself punk attitude, as self-promotion is much more accessible t with things like myspace band pages.
Also, subcultures inevitably end at some point, as they disperse or even go into the main stream of interest. For instance, the documentary exhibits Chrissie Hynde as a legendary punk rocker, being in some of the first 'punk' bands such as The Damned. But more recently since then, most people unaware of punk music would know her as the vocalist from The Pretenders, a band which has many commercial songs, popularised in mainstream media and played on commerical radio stations, with herself even appearing as a guest character on popular shows such as Friends. Andy Warhol is another example of somebody outside the hegemonic sites leaking in to popular culture. He is featured in the documentary as a prominent figure in the PR aspect of punk, managing the pioneering band The Velvet Underground, being image wise and knowing how to present punk. These days, art exhibitions are making a lot of revenue with exhibiting his art. These examples and many more, exemplify how subcultures, especially with the help of the media, eventually dissolve into different areas of culture, and sometimes even in the realm of popular culture.
I also found another documentary on youtube, 'History of Punk Rock-A Documentary by Stan Burdman' which is not very useful, but is amusing and interesting in that it mocks the mainstream punk documentary, and thus is another example punk branching out, as it uses the same techqniues as documentaries, but uses the style to mocks the mainstream media's punk label and stereotype. For instance, he presents Avril Lavigne as the ultimate punk, her rebellion against mainstream coming from he r'skaters' spelling of 'Sk8er' in her song 'Sk8er Boy'. According to him, her punk examples inspires artsts such as AJ from the Backstreet Boys, to be punk, who with his mixture of drug and video game addiction became a bad boy punk icon. This documentary thus illustrates the ever important punk attitude that is against the mainstream culture, as he takes elements of the punk stereotype such as drugs and rebellion, and with his own spin mocks the media's representation of punk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfD2MhvVgwc
Punk: Attitude, definately shows why the attitude part of punk was important, and what it could be today. It can be found in the uq SSH library, or on youtube for any non-uqnians. Some further knowledge of the cultural legacy of punk can be gained from the book Punk Rock: So What? by Roger Sabin.
No comments:
Post a Comment