Bukowski's Women go fashionista (1 Viewer)

That's just brutal. Pack it in MJP, they're coming for us. It was a good 30 year run, but now he belongs to the ages. Let's see just how far off the mark they can get.
And for the people who said that these women are too pretty for Buk, I refer you to one Cupcakes Obrien/Pamela Wood.
I'd like to see any of these guys try to get a woman even close to being as beautiful and sexually stunning as her. Most of the women in Women were absolutely exquisite in real life. We should all do as well as Buk did in that department.
Even today, in her fifties (?) Pam Wood is hotter than that model they used.
 
Just a step removed from those "heroin chic" ads from years ago. Pick up a pen, a guitar, a needle and the women
beat a path to your door. Or so they'd have us think. Those images invoke no feeling in me except for a slight irritation
at the continued un originality of thought that created them. But I guess we all needs to get paid.
 
Not hanging around for Hemingway's Hotties in Calvin Klein's Undies then? Pity:wb:
The girls are young and beautiful (the clothes are nice too) but the photographer and "artistic director" should be shot - for extreme naffness in an attempt to raise their inbred, hackneyed attempt at art-house "living on the edge" theme, it is incredibly hard to pull off as they have demonstrated very successfully. No more please.
 
I was checking the pics out for a few minutes right before I fell asleep. Like Buk, I used the sheet and drifted off...
 
But really all you comic book nerds who would like to think they could do all of Buk's old sloppy seconds and those ladies would somehow become your muse in some Marvel Comic fucked up fantasy: Let's get together with a bottle of Jack Daniels and watch "Supervan" and see what ends up on the written page...
 
I'll have to admit that I don't get the outrage over this one. I like vice.com and the article is just fashion. It isn't supposed to be terribly serious or literary.

And in the scheme of things, 1,000 editorial fashion spreads using Bukowski's name (in the right spirit or not) aren't as bad as one murdered poem in a book with his name on the cover.
 
And in the scheme of things, 1,000 editorial fashion spreads using Bukowski's name (in the right spirit or not) aren't as bad as one murdered poem in a book with his name on the cover.
No argument about the comparative magnitude. But why drag Buk into an inane article about fashion? Of course it isn't supposed to be terribly serious or literary. So what's next, Bukowski cocktails, prepared by "mixologists?" Gag me with a spoon.
 
We already have two "Bukowski Tavern" locations here in Boston/Cambridge that pay little homage to Buk himself other than a large wall mural in the Cambridge location that isn't really very good when you come down to it. The Boston location (last time I checked, which was some five-six years ago) has so little to do with Buk that you'd think Budgerigars would be on the menu. They aren't, but that's not my point.
 
Budgerigars!
why drag Buk into an inane article about fashion?
If you're a fashion editor at Vice your job is to sell clothes to young women. If you're a fashion editor at Vice and a Bukowski fan and you want to work his name into something, what are you going to do? An article about loud polyester shirts and slacks from Sears?

For what it was and where it was and what it was supposed to do, it was perfect.
 
If banality of concept and execution was their goal, then you may be right.
"banality of concept and execution" is the goal of most fashion editorials.

Fashion editorial = advertising. Advertising is an overwhelmingly safe and cowardly industry, so the fact that they even associated Bukowski's name with what is essentially advertising is already against the grain and borderline outrageous. But then Vice is kind of an against the grain joint. I would only ask again what kind of fashion photographs could possibly be relevant to anyone born after 1980 and still be accurate to Bukowski's world?

If it bothers you that Bukowski's name is used for anything other than Bukowski's words, that ship sailed a long time ago. You should probably prepare yourself to be bothered forever, because as he becomes more popular with the kids (i.e. anyone younger than you), this kind of thing is only going to increase. If we're not careful we'll start to sound like the people who turn on their favorite band when they become popular and mainstream.
;)

I have a much bigger problem with un-creative individuals who co-opt his actual work for their own "creative" endeavors than I do with advertisers exploiting him. The 60s are over. The Man won when Jovan sponsored a Rolling Stones tour 30+ years ago.
 
If you're a fashion editor at Vice your job is to sell clothes to young women. If you're a fashion editor at Vice and a Bukowski fan and you want to work his name into something, what are you going to do? An article about loud polyester shirts and slacks from Sears?
No argument about that, whatsoever, MJP. STILL - YES, I want the article about the shirts and slacks from Sears. That's where I shopped (Santa Monica and Western) myself, at around the same time that Buk was living on Carlton. The shirts were not LOUD, however. What they WERE was inexpensive and functional. Period. THAT was Bukowski fashion. Just sayin.
"banality of concept and execution" is the goal of most fashion editorials. [...] If we're not careful we'll start to sound like the people who turn on their favorite band when they become popular and mainstream.
Again, MJP, I find myself essentially in agreement with you, from a relativity/comparison standpoint. That having been said - I STILL gag when I see shit like that. Oh, one more thing, but it's just my own little thing: I never liked ANY mainstream bands. So that analogy doesn't really work for me.
 
If you're a fashion editor at Vice and a Bukowski fan and you want to work his name into something, what are you going to do? An article about loud polyester shirts and slacks from Sears?
Yes:) do it, because it would be a lot more original, funny and interesting. But don't try to evoke Factotum and not put some effort into capturing even a little of the right mood. As roni said, the surroundings were way to clean.
Noir-ish, retro imagery was/ is a predictable staple of fashion magazines and the high end have produced some beautiful, iconic photos that go beyond their brief to display and flog the product.
But trying to steal some unearned gravitas, by slapping the name of a literary icon beside your work deserves a kick up the ass, or a snort or two of derision.

Similarly, I don't really want to be eating Bukowski burgers with a side of Orwell onion rings.
 
Last edited:
Vice always seems to me like a bunch of frustrated middle class kids going out to create two dimensional cartoon stories. Plus the photos are so interchangeable, as if they themselves were part of a fashion shoot. It's like one big brand-wagon chugging along giving sermons to other hipsters about what sunglasses they should be wearing or to tell them Syria is a good holiday destination.

On the plus side my barber always has it on hand to flick through while I'm waiting for a trim (next to his Garbage Pail kid stickers and Modest Mouse posters) so at least I know whether tram-lines are still popular and whether to wear my beard up or down.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top