The thing is that the Soviet sci-fi art movement was a subset of socialist art that was produced in USSR. My whole critique here has been that solar-punk offers a very narrow view of society largely focused on empty aesthetic. For example, if the dispossessed is truly the basis for the movement as you claim it to be, then why does the art produced by the movement not explore all aspects of the society envisioned in the book? Why does it not create a believable and holistic vision of the future being promoted?
the dispossessed is more like a thematic foundation for solar-punk, the ecologically sustainable anarcho-syndicalism is explored in new ways, in the same way that most cyberpunk media doesn’t exactly mirror neuromancer or explore all aspects of that particular society (albeit cyberpunk being a capitalist-realist cry for help for an incoming doom that came and went, and solar-punk being more of an ecological/sociological example of what could be)
My point stands, the art driving the movement should strive to provide a substantive vision of a plausible society in order to provide a believable ecological/sociological example of what could be. This is really what the discussion boils down to in the end, and I fail to see why this wouldn’t be desirable. Why settle for superficial aesthetics without fleshing out the details of how this society would function.
it is a hopeful vision of the future in the same way soviet sci-fi is, which as far as ive experienced doesn’t usually flesh out the details of how exactly the soviet state withers away
soviet sci-fi usually acted as more of an inspiration for those who were already educated by a communist state, solar-punk acts as a inspiration for the much more niche community of eco-socialists in a similar way, in that regard they are only superficial as much as imaginary hopeful socialist futures in general are superficial
The thing is that the Soviet sci-fi art movement was a subset of socialist art that was produced in USSR. My whole critique here has been that solar-punk offers a very narrow view of society largely focused on empty aesthetic. For example, if the dispossessed is truly the basis for the movement as you claim it to be, then why does the art produced by the movement not explore all aspects of the society envisioned in the book? Why does it not create a believable and holistic vision of the future being promoted?
the dispossessed is more like a thematic foundation for solar-punk, the ecologically sustainable anarcho-syndicalism is explored in new ways, in the same way that most cyberpunk media doesn’t exactly mirror neuromancer or explore all aspects of that particular society (albeit cyberpunk being a capitalist-realist cry for help for an incoming doom that came and went, and solar-punk being more of an ecological/sociological example of what could be)
My point stands, the art driving the movement should strive to provide a substantive vision of a plausible society in order to provide a believable ecological/sociological example of what could be. This is really what the discussion boils down to in the end, and I fail to see why this wouldn’t be desirable. Why settle for superficial aesthetics without fleshing out the details of how this society would function.
it is a hopeful vision of the future in the same way soviet sci-fi is, which as far as ive experienced doesn’t usually flesh out the details of how exactly the soviet state withers away
soviet sci-fi usually acted as more of an inspiration for those who were already educated by a communist state, solar-punk acts as a inspiration for the much more niche community of eco-socialists in a similar way, in that regard they are only superficial as much as imaginary hopeful socialist futures in general are superficial
As I mentioned in the other reply, I agree with your take in a context of a broader eco-socialist movement.