HOME | DD
ForbiddenObsession — Steampunk- Not that hard...
Published: 2011-06-10 20:05:08 +0000 UTC; Views: 1140; Favourites: 6; Downloads: 21
Redirect to original
Description
this is one of my absolute pet peeves, when people make a theoretically steampunk girl, but then totally disregard the fact that steampunk is based in the victorian society, and therefore would have certain cultural quirks, like skirts on women. it's not that hard, really, just stick a little open petticoat or SOMETHING over the pants. please.from left to right:
not steampunk: even if you have goggles and gears coming out your ears, no victorian woman, even in an alternate, tech-y future, would have been allowed without a skirt of some sort. seriously, read up on the culture.
REALLY not steampunk: sticking goggles, lace, and a mask/gloves on some skank does NOT make her steampunk!! >.<
steampunk: it's simply the outfits of the day+weird scifi-y touches. not. that. hard. come on, people.
for the game: [link] this stuff is amazingggg!!!!!!!
Related content
Comments: 13
Fashion and function would be separate for the most part, just s they are in many things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah... I gotta agree, though i would say that the skirts thing isn't particularly necessary- it depends on the setting and what the girl is doing. That first one I would consider far more steampunk than the second, but I would say if she were wearing pants they'd be more like guys' work clothes.
The third one I would say isn't actually very good... if she's gonna be dressed like that, why would she have the buckles and belt? Again, consider the setting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
haha my point with the second is that one really must have more than just lingerie on to be called steampunk xD
i'm just saying that, if one is following the theoretical definition of steampunk, which is a victorian world that has used the power of steam to create electricity and thus revolutionize technology, the basic victorian morals would not have changed, and one of the most basic morals was women did not wear pants. now a tech innovation would possibly have effected some slight change, but i still believe that at the very least some kind of short over skirt would have been required, and that, for the most part, the fashion would have remained unchanged--after all, the women (very few, but still) who went on missionary trips to undeveloped countries in the 1800s still wore much of the same clothing as the ladies back home in england, only with less petticoat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well yes, though I would have defined Steampunk as the future as envisioned by Victorians... so logically yes, skirts would be the norm- but the Victorian era wasn't without feminism, so it's logical to expect that even if the technology diverged differently, the fashions WOULD change. If anything the goggles and stuff is far stupider.
I highly agree about the outfits that are little more than lingerie. It would be considered highly indecent, i expect... hell... it's barely acceptable even now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the feminism of victorian england was not of the bloomer-inducing sort, i would argue, but you make a good argument n.n
haha i agree with you, and they're also incredibly impractical for a steampunk character; with all sorts of soot and grime in the air from coal plants and such, to wear an outfit like that would be rather disgusting o.O
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It just seems like the most important thing to think about when considering an outfit is the character or what thy're doing- function or fashion? Even if function- WHAT? What's gonna be used in their given activity? Horse riding (though maybe irrelevant) for instance, a girl would have to learn to ride side saddle effectively or wear pants/different type of dress that's convenient.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well for that though, women wealthy enough to ride own horses for riding would have been trained to ride sidesaddle, so that's not really an issue xD
for me, the fashions of the period come first, and then must be adapted to function; if one considers function first, then there's nothing that will anchor it to the period, save for some silly goggles and brass rivets (which, honestly, make no sense - it's just cloth, why would one use a rivet on plain cotton? -_-*)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's more than one reason to ride a horse!
Herein lies the problem with steampunk art in general... people want to make a 'steampunk character', not a 'character fit for a steampunk setting'. For this reason it ends up as anything goes and everything gets overplayed with gears everywhere and the ever-so-overused goggles-that-serve-no-purpose.
For standalone art i suppose you would be correct to say fashion comes first, but a a true steampunk character wouldn't scream steampunk...it would be very subtle until you see his props or setting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i think that would then be all the more argument for a period-correct costume, because what defines steampunk as a separate genre is not the victorian aspect, but the modifications to it, thus by that reasoning, one would assume a steampunk character is just plain victorian until one realizes that the character is stepping out of a steam-powered helicopter...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes! I agree totally, though again I would state that the clothes would have evolved to become a little more modern- just with an extreme Victorian influence... but that would just be because everything changes in time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
haha so really, the whole time, we've basically been having the same theory about the clothing, just you're thinking more a future beyond victorian, and i'm thinking more literal victorian xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Essentially, yes o-o
-thumbs up-
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1