Why punk-rock is the most environmentally sustainable subculture....

I love punk rock and I idolise punk rockers all day long. I'm a punk rock fantasist.
Punk rock is activist by its most basic nature. Punk rock is a bad-ass global machine made of localised cogs that step out on their own and shout about important things and support the voicing of issues we all encounter throughout life. Punk rockers wanna challenge the status quo and make changes in the world and society. They disrupt supply chains of information, subverting mass media and taking responsibility for forming their own opinions based on lived and observed experience.
Now there are a few misguided punks who riot and disrupt peaceful society for the sake of being noticed, but we shall ignore those ones - that's unsustainable punk.
Also, i'll give serious credit where it's due to folk, blues, rock'n'roll, rap and basically all other music scenes that were born, directly or by evolution, out of the Mississippi mud back in the slavery days.

These music and culture scenes are all badass and activist, but punk-rock has a very definitive visual style which I would like to applaud for being environmentally sustainable for various reasons, but before I do so I must share one or doubts about this too, as I recently discovered a few bits of information which pointed out that punk-rock style and conservation of the planet do not often go hand in hand.

I was going to introduce you to some of my punk rock fashion icons... but maybe I'll mention just one or two because we'd be here forever if I told you about all of them.

Patti Smith (Punk-poet extraordinaire: the Godmother of punk, but she's got serious rock blood too).
Brian Fallon (former punk-rocker, current mellowed out rocker).

These two behemoths of style, attitude and vision just look good all the damn time. Serious style.
Jeans, T-shirts and poetry.

Both Patti and Fallon are almost always in jeans.

Jeans are staples. Good wardrobe staples have longevity (made well and forever look awesome) and thus override throwaway fashion trends and instead enhance the slow fashion movement that environmental sustainability demands.
Any fashion sense that is based on staples, or includes only stapes, is already more eco-friendly simply because if you're going to buy a staple you'll want a really good quality one that lasts forever, and that in itself is a sustainable habit.
Punks are good at that, especially the ones who like to wear their jeans and t-shirt into a well-loved former shell of a garment embellished proudly with rips and patches that lay testament to a solid lifetime of punking and rocking.

Jeans are culturally so punk rock it hurts, but the cotton denim industry has dabbled in some rather less than punk rock behaviour, environmentally speaking. Here's the story.
I will start with Brian Fallon because he's got a newer record to promote ('Painkillers' is his first solo record which came out earlier this year and it's a winner. Just buy it, ok thanks) and because he does reference denim far far more than Patti!
All denim I really ought to stress, is punk rock, not just the jeans. The jean jackets, the dresses, even these reclaimed denim sunglasses!

Fallon's main band, The Gaslight Anthem (on hiatus) have a discography jam-packed with references to folk, pop, punk, rock and blues culture. They pay homage to The Clash, Bob Dylan, Warren Zevon, Springsteen, Charles Dickens, Tom Petty, Miles Davis, Tom Waits, Marvin Gaye, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Casablanca and many more... some so subliminal I probably haven't worked them out yet. Fallon's new solo album also includes references to The Beatles (dissing them a little which I like because I think The Beatles are overrated)  and Marianne Faithful.
But some of the most memorable references which have gained cult status among Fallon and Gaslight fans are to (directly or indirectly) the post WWII youth culture of rebellion, freedom and independence that is represented by denim, tattoos and white t-shirts and of course punk-rock itself!
I'll include a few of Fallon's songs that reference punk-rock style starting with these two:

Steve McQueen - by Brian Fallon



I believe Jesus brought us together  - by The Horrible Crowes. This one references the faded denim look which is particularly environmentally damaging when forced in the production process... note below where I mention sandblasting.



Denim has a very interesting history.
It started off life as work-wear textile at the end of the 1800s, accelerating into youth culture in the 1950s, entering pop culture while gathering some incredibly harmful production trends along the way (such as sandblasting - that achieves that faded effect - which is carried out in a province in China by shooting sand at high speed from a jet gun at the denim, causing fatal respiratory problems for the workers operating the sandblasters), and out the other side into niche raw denim production favoured by Hackney hipsters - who probably don't even know the environmental benefits of their choice to hardly ever wash their denim!
Denim is American but over time production shifted abroad in order to cater to demand. The last American denim factory moved from Texas to Costa Rica in 1992, the final nail in the coffin of the American garment industry.
Denim is hardcore and serious and rebellious and bold. It's durable too. The marketing of denim, whether by intention or by natural style and taste evolution, is quite possibly the most successful and long-lasting marketing campaign ever. We're all in love with denim and what it means and we'll never get over it!
So - being a fan of the music, culture, work ethic and attitude of The Gaslight Anthem, Brian Fallon and punk rock means I am also a big fan of denim.
But it needs to be sustainable denim produced ethically.

When considering a sustainable and ethical clothing purchase you need to consider three steps of a garment's life:

1. Production
This includes the farming of the crop for the fibres - is it ecologically sustainable?
Were fertilisers or pesticides used?
Is the crop GMO or not?
How much irrigation is needed for the crop?
Is it a synthetic fabric and therefore made of oil derivatives (toxic in production, the washing of the garment and the eventual decomposition of the garment).
Additionally is the crop being grown and harvested by workers who are being treated well - paid appropriately, operating in safe conditions, and enjoying a life of freedom?

In regards to denim, consider the under-publicised environmental and health issues within the cotton production industry.

2. Processing
This is the turning of the crop into fibres and then textiles, and then garments.
Is a lot of energy and water needed for this?
Are a lot of emissions produced?
Is dye with chemicals being used and thus creating toxic waste in water used during the dyeing process, as well as plastering the garment with a layer of chemical colour which will release toxins?
Is the garment printed?
Again - who is carrying out this process? Are they being paid and treated well? Is their place of work safe?

3. Life of garment
Once it belongs to you a garment still can have environmental implications.
How often are you washing it? Synthetic textiles release microfibres into the waterways each time they are washed, which are essentially plastic particles which pollute the oceans and waterways and make up 85% of shoreline waste deposits. These release toxins, some carginogenic, into the water. They do the same in soil when taken to landfill.

So here are some sustainable denim brands for you!

So denim production can be harmful but we now have options.
It is also so endlessly appeals in laden with such attitude and culture that when we buy a pair of jeans we will mean it - they never go out of fashion and that's sustainable!

Upcycling, mending and patching.

You can also buy second-hand denim or upcycle your denim... Upcycling is another punk-rock style feature....
.... Punk-rockers are famous for the DIY element of their style. Admittedly Brian Fallon and Patti Smith don't display this habit so much but it's an important thing to have a DIY attitude towards your clothes:
Mend, patch, upcycle and adjust your clothes. They will last longer and keep you interested longer.
I did find this picture of Patti though with a groovy looking satchel which appears to made of hemp (a more sustainable fibre) and shows how some savvy punks could make their own bags from discarded coffee sacks and old leather.

White T-shirts.

Admired by rebels for years from the days of James Dean onwards, white t-shirts are immortalised as the uniform for individuals out chasing their aspirations and making things happen in the song Blue Jeans and White T-shirts by The Gaslight Anthem.



White t-shirts, however simple in inoffensive a garment the may seem, are not. Every plain white t-shirt uses 700 gallons of water in its production.
In addition, cotton is not naturally white but needs to be bleached, leaving behind it a wake of toxic chemical run-off in water systems and soil.

So what are the alternatives?

This company, The White T-shirt, are committed to ethical and environmental t-shirt production and transparency, which means you as the customer knows the truth about who and what made your t-shirt.

Or... Just buy second-hand guys - we have to keep all synthetic garments out of landfill so that they do not release harmful and carcinogenic toxins such as alimony as they break down. Plastic will NEVER break down fully but still releases toxins in heat.

Smoking.

Ok it looks cool I know and it is punk-rock, and there's no point saying it's bad for your health because who doesn't know that!
But every time you drop one cigarette filter it will release 1,200 toxic microfibres into the air and ground, and of course directly into you when you smoke it.

But if smoking is your chosen poison then there's hope for your environmental credentials yet... you can separate your cigarette waste into bio-degradable and non-biodegradable waste, so the ash and paper can be composted and the filter can be recycled and turned into plastic powder and pellets and to made into new things. A New Jersey company called TerraCycle are doing this and this reducing the need for virgin plastics.

Tattoos.

Big fan! Love them! Nothing wrong with them. If I wasn't a human i'd be a tattoo on someone, it'd be rad - although you ought to know nowadays tattoo technology uses an animal product in the ink which sets the pigment into the skin more securely which prevents it from seeping and blurring. The after-care products and the transfer papers used in commercial tattooing also often contain animal products.

Vegan tattoos are available however, so if you're an animal enthusiast as well as punk-rock saint then choose vegan tattoos.

Fifth Dimension Tattoos - A London studio offering entirely vegan tattoos.

A more in-depth article on the use of animal products in tattooing.

Leather.

Yes leather can be useful by-product from meat production, but large-scale meat farming is SUCH an environmentally damaging process anyway and so we should not be encouraging it.
Generally i'm not in favour of any leather, unless it's buying second-hand leather from a charity of vintage shop.

This is a more in-depth study of the ethics of leather.
Fish Leather is a by-product which would otherwise be discarded that is growing in popularity for fashion designers.

Emotional longevity of garments.
I read once that Fallon has some hat he loves because the chick who made the hat included a little embroidered Tom Waits lyric into the hat band. That hat surely aint never going in the bin - there's a way to eliminate throwaway fashion - have garments that you are emotionally attached to and mean something special to you and you alone.
In Patti's latest book M Train she also speak of a coat which she was gifted by a friend and so desperately loved but lost one day. It's wonderful thought to know that people can form such unbreakable attachments to clothing and that not only does this offer some comfort and encouragement to them when they are around that item of clothing, but their life-long relationship with that garments will make sure they never need to buy another one of those items.

-

So... although there are some obstacles to overcome with punk-rock style and/or uniform, the brazen attitude of independence that is punk-rock can be found as part of the environmental and social strategy of conscious fashion producers as they move away from unsustainable resources, methods and materials in their garments.
Punk rock has staying power, in its attitude and visual style. It celebrates those basics we all need and love to wear; denim jeans & plain t-shirts, and getting hold of sustainable basics will set you up for life. There's no bette investments for both your own ethical wardrobe and personal style, and for the promotion of slow and lasting fashion in service of the conservation of the planet.
Tattoos last forever so you better get a kind one.
Leather is gnarly so buy it with serious care.
Punk rock = caring.

And one more thing - punk-rock has always scrabbled together whatever resources and ideas were available to it and made it into something raw, uncontrived and fresh - which is how sustainable fashion methodology should work.
People make changes. That's punk and that's the future.
This attitude is professed in both Patti's song 'People have The Power'...



And Gaslight's song 'Ida Called you Woody, Joe', which directly references The Clash and various the music cultures, such as blues and punk, that adapt and make a lasting effect with their creativity: 'a ramshackle voice over an attack of a blues beat'. Sound.

A small essay on the discomfort between art, colonialism and climate activism.

As an artist and an environmentalist, with an ongoing strong interest in indigenous rights (ever since I ventured to Australia as a naïve British teenager with a wad of cash from stacking shelves at M&S that I wanted to spend on beers at Bondi beach and bungee jumps – I quickly changed my outlook once I got there), I have always wondered how best to mesh these concerns and practices together to live a considerate lifestyle and to send a message using the one thing I feel at peace with and can’t stop doing – making art in my studio.

Initially, the first barrier is to question if I am being selfish in choosing to make art – does the world need more essentially pointless decoration and niche academia? I would initially say no, probably because my work isn’t particularly academic as much as it is emotive and fantastical. I find very niche academia (such as the concept of the object etc etc) interesting but in danger of being a little too removed from real life when there's so much rubbish to clear up!

But I’ve come round to an idea of thinking – yes: make what you like – if you can speak to just one person about something and be inclusive that way, then go for it. BUT there are three things we ought to look out for when placing ourselves in the art world (whether as an artist, curator, critic, educator…)

–      Don’t make people feel left out for not being ‘academic’ or ‘arty’ enough; who is anyone to say that someone is less creative and less interesting than anyone else?

–      Don’t waste physical or financial resources on making something that is really just in your own interest. i.e don’t fuel a segregated art and culture scene where only other learned people can engage. By all means create/engage in a locality surrounding your work, but don’t withhold resources from others in doing so.

–      And this is the MOST important…. Don’t forget how curated culture began. I’m kind of speaking to UK/USA/Australian first-worlders here) – It began as way to exoticise and preserve ‘prizes’ from the colonised world. That is how museums and galleries began. And museums and galleries are still assuming to speak on behalf of indigenous communities. It’s still a show. A colonial performance.

So – now that I have made known my issues with the way some people and institutions operate, I can relate this to the environment and indigenous rights.

We all know that much of public culture is sponsored by oil. For example, BP sponsors the British Museum, Total and Eni sponsor Le Louvre, and Shell, along with three major airlines are corporate partners with the BFI… to name just a few. Every large culture institution you can think of is pretty much sponsored by fossil fuels companies, banks that invest in fossil fuels, or companies linked with poor workers rights or unsustainable palm oil production (resulting in deforestation).

If you did not know that, read more here.

http://www.artnotoil.org.uk/institutions

All artists ought to know this by now (even if they don’t care) otherwise they can consider themselves disconnected with mainstream life, and borderline irrelevant to the future. If you are an artist you need to know how your potential career may be funded, and also the responsibility to which you must be held in your awareness of the dirty, oily, disrespectful ‘pinnacle’ of the art world. Art is a free world (theoretically) but its infrastructure and financial system is shady and imprisoned by climate change and a legacy of human rights abuse.

So I want to look at a few different things

- How creativity and meaning may be altered or undermined once a cultural institution is involved in its production or display.

- The danger of viewing art in the context of a gallery.

- A type of approach to racially inclusive art practices.

So…Firstly: ‘how creativity and meaning may be altered or undermined once a cultural institution is involved in its production or display’

The explorers of Colonialism brought us back many rare and interesting curiosities; ritual objects, traditional dress, foreign art. Imperial artists were commissioned to paint representations of foreign lands and wildlife. Public galleries and museums were opened to show everyone how clever the Empire was, how fast it was expanding. They showed the power of the Empire, and how rich it was becoming due to the expanding trade routes and the exotic products we were gaining access to. Money and power were so glorious! And that’s how it has stayed ever since. Power may have relocated to an academic and ‘knowledge’ based currency, but Imperial money is still what keeps these museums and galleries going. And Imperial money comes from Colonialism. Colonialism met the Industrial age and issued a brutal demand for natural resources such as coal, oil and gas. Colonialism bought about the slave trade, displacement of indigenous people, theft and destruction of their homelands and indeed their health and dignity, elimination of their religions and spirituality, and all for the sake of power and money. And the power and money is something we still possess and can’t surrender. Our empire is still very much alive, but it’s now a Coca-cola Empire, A Shell Empire, A Nestlé Empire…

So the very fact that culture is funded by dirty money changes the meaning and our ‘knowledge’ of both history and culture. It changes the meaning of creativity when viewed with this in mind. The sponsors don’t want certain things to get out about their past, and indeed their present. Culture, if you like, is a way to sneakily fulfil corporate social responsibility. And if you push that to the back of your mind, you’re frankly saying you’re ‘ok’ to the fact that slavery, theft and destruction allowed culture to flourish.

Secondly - the danger of viewing art in the context of a gallery 

Now we know the narrative of art and culture (exploitation = ‘knowledge’ = power and money) we can’t deny it.

If one goes to the Tate Britain and sees the Artist and Empire exhibition which is now on, one will come away sickened. There is no mention of the actual social functions and the nature of the transactions between the world of art and the British Empire. It is simply a collection of Colonial-era objects and art, mainly from Western Imperial artists as well! We all know about slavery and mining, but even this is barely touched upon let alone examined in relation to how and why we are able to stand in that very room looking at art.

The entire exhibition is a de-contextualised from modernity, and completely subverts the idea that culture = knowledge. They are hiding the facts that allow the exhibition to even take place! They are not giving you the knowledge you went there for.

Viewing art in any gallery, let alone one sponsored by oil (and therefore a gallery that watches its mouth in relation to its Colonial legacy) upholds a dangerous narrative just by the very fact that we are viewing the art in isolation. We’re not considering the social constructs and events that happened to allow the money for the art to be produced, or for the paint pigment to be discovered, or for the oil-derivative sculpture material to be made and distributed, or for the carved wood to be cut and shipped. Last night I saw a panel discussion at the British Library chaired by David A Bailey, who posed the question that the ‘white cube’ art space is out of touch. I agree – it cannot allow art to fulfil its potential for truth, empathy and mobilisation of the public.

My last point is about a type of approach to racially inclusive art practices.

Many of us are aware of our nation’s Colonial past, and are careful to admire rather than use the discoveries about foreign cultures. However, having already had my suspicions about, and felt inherent discomfort about indigenous creativity being separated from white creativity, I attended a talk on Colonialism, Art and Climate change. This took place last weekend at Climate Rising in Euston. My suspicions were confirmed by a panel of artists and activists of colour: Black and brown artists are employed and studied as a representation of trauma and exoticism, and not as a creative human force within their own rights. Coloured artists are curated by white gallerists, curators and critics. Coloured artists are commodified – Western guilt is alleviated and forward-thinking is assumed when coloured artists are publicised or included in shows. White supremacy is still rife, even in the avenues in which we think it is not.

This type of approach is symptomatic of how white supremacy gets in the way of true change.
Oh and as additional reading take a look at this review of a show in the Netherlands that is currently on and displays art by artists from various african countries:
http://www.artslant.com/ams/articles/show/45022

My parting statement shall be:

Colonialism needs to be at the forefront of the climate movement ALWAYS, because the former colony lands are the ones that have suffered the most as a result of climate change (hotter, drier, poorer, wetter etc), and if white people in power dive in again without consulting indigenous populations then were are all back where we started. Indigenous communities such as the aborigines are the ones who know how to live on their land, we do not know how to live on their land. We don’t know their social constructs. We cannot assume to know more about how to help their situation than they do. Total control of their future must be given back t o them, because it should never have been taken away.

However. Although I do care about indigenous rights and climate change affecting them worst of all, I can’t escape the fact that I come across as a guilty white Brit. I cannot claim to know something outside the scope of my own experience. I do however think I am a good person, and empathetic. So I can imagine, and gain unsaturated knowledge by looking to the right sources. But I can’t EVER claim to speak for indigenous people. I just have to try and alert people like me for whom life is easier, to the issues at hand for the planet and indigenous people.

But I do NOT want to be eliminated in my helpfulness because I am white.

I have the advantage of being able to speak on this end of the phone – to the more advantaged people. Everyone has the ability to help, just in different ways.

There’s the saying ‘don’t preach to the converted’: Often human rights and climate issues are only reaching the converted. My aim is to reach the people on the cusp of caring, people who can get on board once they see things a bit clearer. My aim is also to push for giving indigenous people back their platform for freedom of speech and autonomy, by appealing to the background I came from.

***

And here are a few details of some paintings I am working on to represent my 'film' in 'stills' - read back a post or two through my blog if you want to know more. It is a film that is 100% about indigenous rights and the environment and personal aspirations - and how those things often clash.

For extra background check out this amazing lady Suzanne Dhaliwal who I have seen speak twice in the last week, and is so succinct and modern and intelligent. 

Also check out Platform a great organisation that covers all the thinks I've just spoken about, as does SHAKE! who are totally my kind of creative caring people.

I know there aren't many pictures on these last few posts, but I'm really excited about the art i'm starting to make now and I want it to be surprise for my exhibition in June.