Flea in my Bonnet - July 2025

One of the anonymous reviews we received from a patron of this year's market voiced their disappointment about how “capitalistic” the event was and how they wished it was “more aligned with the ethos of punk”.

Immediately, I said “this was written by a man.” 

I envisioned a flacid stick of dynamite stuffed into an old denim vest wandering the aisles of the PRFM with custom made orthopedic insoles, unimpressed at everything. Because who else could be so self-assured about their opinion and definition of “Punk” than an aged man-child whose youthful anger at the world manifested as DIY mohawks and loud music from the 90's? 

I also envisioned his journey towards, then past, middle-age. Slowly subjected to the Lycanthropy of the real world until one day he catches a glimpse of himself in the mirror and sees how he's turned into the very person he outwardly despised back when he was Punk, and “Punk was Punk”, but now he's just some corporate punk; a dead insect on its side, hollow and watching the world pass by from the window sill while wearing custom orthopedic insoles.

The review stirred much laughter and light debate amongst the YYCPRFM group chat because what the fuck does the ethos of punk even mean? And who is the one to define it? More so, a flea market is intrinsically Capitalist. The gripe about not being the “Punk Rock Communist Rendezvous Where Everything Is Free Because Property Is Theft  Jamboree”, or PRCRWEIFBPITJ, as was a working title but didn't make the cut, seemed like a ill-informed dig. Im surprised with the amount of dictionaries available in most Little Free Libraries around the city that such a critique was leveled against us as one of the key points in defining a ‘flea market’ is the selling of inexpensive antiques, curios etc… So, being irked that things made by local artists were for sale at a local market with ‘punk rock’ as part of the name is like getting upset because you pulled on a push door then said “well, a real door would have opened.” 

I digress. Right, the ethos of punk.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines punk as such:

“...a culture popular among young people, especially in the late 1970s, involving opposition to authority expressed through shocking behaviour, clothes, and hair, and fast, loud music..”

Johnny Rotten once said in a BBC interview: 

“Times move on. Only a fool looks back to last year or the year before. Punk became like fascist. It has to be this way or else… I've always said music should be many attitudes.  All are tolerable. It becomes intolerable when one particular form takes over and obliterates the rest. That is wrong.”

So between the two examples a single truth exists: “Punk” is the term used to describe individuals and actions that gestate a school of thought in response to oppressive norms. 

We see that with the “...involving opposition to authority…” statement with the Cambridge definition, but also implied with nuance when Johnny Rotten said “...Punk became like fascist. It has to be this way or else…” When he was discussing the impact of “Nevermind the Bullocks’” impact on the Punk Rock genre and, subsequently, the culture as a whole.

Ru Paul, the pioneering Queen of Drag, was famously in a punk band before she became who she is today. The poet Saul Williams says he identifies more with Punk than anything else; as does famed director and queer icon John Waters. So, are they the ethos of punk? Or merely posers whom have straddled the tailcoat tatters of a subculture to their own benefit? Survey says- they are, indeed, punk as fuck.

Why? Because they used their art to transform the landscapes around them. The lenses from which they saw the world through were such that they couldn't exist in any other capacity than that of their unique brilliance. And in spite of, or to spite, the fact there wasn't any space or place for them in the mainstream, the steely determination of genuine artistry was the force that wouldn't capitulate. Just ask any of the artists who were at the market. Each of them were born with the same unstoppable force to create; to hone a craft in their own image and give it to the world unrepentantly. That is Punk. That is Punk as fuck, my dude because Punk is unyielding. Punk is radical insomuch that it exists and the example of what isn't but needs to be. Yet at the same time isn't radical because what is, and what does, surround us is an encroaching tyranny of systematic and pop-culture standards and such dissenting voices to that should not be considered radical but necessary. Which is why we, as artists, exists. And why we, as artists, have this market.

So, yes- the ethos of punk was thriving, sir. From setup to take down, it thrived. And if you don't agree, that's cool. Just know that Johnny Rotten thinks you're a fascist and hates your custom orthopedics.

Written by @Alottacollage - PRFMYYC July 2025