The Times had an article on the Steampunk genre/movement/aesthetic yesterday! The article is so behind the curve, that I'm a little surprised they didn't go with the "Backlash to Steampunk" angle, but whatevs: the result is we get to watch a subculture panic about potential irrelevance on their blogs.
OK First: AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA.
People! Do not get your health corsets in a twist! There will be more Maker Faires! You may continue to casemod your Circuit City purchases so they look like they went through a Brundlepod with a clarinet! The future is still then!
For: the target audience of the article is presumably someone who (1) reads the Times but (2) doesn't know about Steampunk, and would therefore have to be the octogenarians on the Upper West Side who actually have actual dates-to-the-Edwardian-period stuff in their apartment and won't care.
Too: the pictures in the article don't really sell it in a way that makes it "desirable in any way", so your design ethos remains safe. (e.g., I don't think Christoing your TV in burlap makes it Steampunk?) (I think it just messes up your TV?) (AND YOUR BURLAP?)
(Also: looking at the first few pictures of the slideshow, my brain was like, That doesn't really look like Steampunk. It looks more like "54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment Punk".)
(Dear Diary. Today I realized my brain is probably racist.)
Just kidding. It's over.
Just as grunge fonts begat Apple Minimalism, time to jump ship: I am shorting Steampunk and going long Cold War Industrial.
Good luck, Sillof's Workshop, I'll miss you most of all.
update (6/10/08): AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!