The Jonas Brothers Steampunk or just Neo-Victorian?
My question is somewhat prompted by the recent attempts at defining Steampunk. Specifically, I speak of the band's appearance at Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve party. I don't really know much about Jonas Brothers others than they're pop (and really need to be a lot older than they are XD) so my question is about their outfits for this particular night.
I tried to get some stills from online videos, but they are crappy and useless, so I won't even bother posting. Instead, watch the video(s) to get a sense of what I'm talking about--they're both short, but probably need no more than a minute of watching. The two on the right (I suppose because of their hats) seemed especially steampunk to me. Nay, the farthest to the right, in the military-style olive coat, fingerless gloves, and swath of chains dangling from his side (apparent in 1st video @ 22 seconds @ 0:48, and 1:16 for starters) seems to have the most steam potential. Mr. Tophat could perhaps use some goggles or gear-embellished cufflinks (sorry, I don't know their names).
Here's a video.
Hey, here's another one!
So, what do you think? What if the brother in the tophat did, in fact, have gear cufflinks, but we can't see them--would that make him "steampunk"? Can one inadvertently be steampunk? (wearing stuff that "just looks cool" but ends up being steampunk) or does there need to be intention as well? Some members have come here saying how they "were steampunk" before they even knew the idea existed. What does this imply about aesthetics, mentality, or even basic awareness in regards to steampunk? Am I being too liberal with the term "steampunk"? Do I even know what I'm talking about? (hee, I know I think I do)
Ponderings aside, I at once got extrememly excited (and jealous) when I saw them in those outfits. I'd love to think that 2008 will mean guys' Victorian-esque clothing will be easier to come by. Here's to wishful thinking and a happy new year everyone!
I tried to get some stills from online videos, but they are crappy and useless, so I won't even bother posting. Instead, watch the video(s) to get a sense of what I'm talking about--they're both short, but probably need no more than a minute of watching. The two on the right (I suppose because of their hats) seemed especially steampunk to me. Nay, the farthest to the right, in the military-style olive coat, fingerless gloves, and swath of chains dangling from his side (apparent in 1st video @ 22 seconds @ 0:48, and 1:16 for starters) seems to have the most steam potential. Mr. Tophat could perhaps use some goggles or gear-embellished cufflinks (sorry, I don't know their names).
Here's a video.
Hey, here's another one!
So, what do you think? What if the brother in the tophat did, in fact, have gear cufflinks, but we can't see them--would that make him "steampunk"? Can one inadvertently be steampunk? (wearing stuff that "just looks cool" but ends up being steampunk) or does there need to be intention as well? Some members have come here saying how they "were steampunk" before they even knew the idea existed. What does this imply about aesthetics, mentality, or even basic awareness in regards to steampunk? Am I being too liberal with the term "steampunk"? Do I even know what I'm talking about? (hee, I know I think I do)
Ponderings aside, I at once got extrememly excited (and jealous) when I saw them in those outfits. I'd love to think that 2008 will mean guys' Victorian-esque clothing will be easier to come by. Here's to wishful thinking and a happy new year everyone!