Punk as a counterculture was a product of its time. The disparity of opportunities available to working and middle class people was highlighted by the end of the post war economic boom. High inflation and high unemployment signalled the end of the Golden Age of Capitalism and the beginning of something else entirely. At a time when day to day life was subject to monumental economic and political change; punk demanded individual agency and dissent. Although perhaps best known for its music, punk was a vast counterculture. If there was something to be made or said it wasn’t only necessary that you do it yourself- it was required. Zines pulled together collage; cut outs and scrawled handwriting into independent publications. Ideas, images and gossip could be shared from person to person unedited and unfiltered. Zines weren’t new. Sci fi fanzines had been around since the 1930s but the active rejection of mainstream publishing is representative of the counterculture’s rejection of wider mainstream traditions and institutions of the time. It could be (and is) argued that the spirit of punk is not dead. Through music; text, art and documentary the movement still communicates the social experiences of that point in history to ours. Those experiences still bear relevancy today. The desire and need for dissent and action are keenly felt when the choices we can make for ourselves are limited by opportunity or possibility. However by the same token, the movement in its original iteration was a generation’s reaction to contemporary and personal experiences. As much as we can relate to them, we can’t contribute to that reaction. Even though its cultural significance continues to be felt, punk as it occurred in the early 70s existed for that exact moment in time.

I believe a counter to this opinion, and undeniable support for it, is held within the 1998 James Merendino movie, "SLC Punk!". "Another thing that pissed me off, talking about who started punk. Was it Sex Pistols in England? Was it the Ramones and the Velvet Underground in New York? Is it the Ramones? Is it the Sex Pistols? ... Who cares who started it? It's music." "Punk" is not some genre defying counterculture that was started and ended at a specific point unless you're a social theorist. Zine culture is still alive and well today – freelance art in general maintains the spirit of punk that is spoken of. The need for individualism, especially in today's vacuum of media, will always be present. Sure, there might be an original iteration that so called "punks" today will never relate to entirely, but what else is it besides the first point "punk" was used as a label? Experience is experience for all despite what you want to call it. I think there's a larger discussion to be had on labels here. For now, I believe the concept of "punk" may never have been born in the first place.

No, it just looks different. Look at people like Playboi Carti and Teezo Touchdown.