Early Uncharacteristic Abstract (1 Viewer)

zoom man

Founding member
What all do you guys think of this?

bukabstract.jpg


It's from Crucifix in a Deathhand.
It seems like a highly unusuall 'drawing' but I haven't seen any other such early examples.
(And what does it look like?!)
Thanks for any and all input,
Eric
 
that is very interesting..
I wish my copy had that drawing! (assuming Buk penned it...). It's definitely not the type of art we are used to seeing from B. I've been staring at it for a few moments and it's abstract, so it's OPEN to opinion as far as what 'it' is...
I'd be curious to see what others think?!
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Nice. Looks like a man on a horse to me. Buk had a relaxed, easy way with abstracts. Loose and sure. I'd say it's a good drawing.
 

zoom man

Founding member
Loose and sure indeed,
Thanks David,
I whole-heartedly agree...
Even in such an early example he doesn't seem to hesitate
Or be wishy-washy in any way.

I get a very musical feel from the drawing,
Like them Tiki (?!) figures that are so in vogue now;
But these three guys are stringing instruments in my head,
Not blowing. ;)

BTW-> (and this should be a new thread)
Speaking hypothetically :cool:
Let's say this copy of Death is missing that elusive wrap-around band,
And so I got it cheaper than I should have.
Would anyone have a problem with me finding a cheap/beat-up copy with a fine wrap-around band and stealing said band to include with this beautiful copy?

Let the arrows fly.....:D
 

mjp

Founding member
He did similar art in some copies of It Catches:

bukowskipainting005.jpg


Though I think that one may be a snake around a flower or something...but it has an abstract quality to it. ;)
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Let's say this copy of Death is missing that elusive wrap-around band,
And so I got it cheaper than I should have.
Would anyone have a problem with me finding a cheap/beat-up copy with a fine wrap-around band and stealing said band to include with this beautiful copy?

Zoom man: I don't think that would happen. The band would be the first part of the book to catch hell, like a dj on another book. You'd never, realistically, find a beat up copy with a nice band. Book dealers / collectors sometimes do "marry" the nice parts of two copies of the same book, same edition. I think that's called a sophisticated copy, and it's considered evil, slightly disreputable, or okay, depending on how fussy you are. What you might find is a copy that is written in, stained, or with a page torn out, but in otherwise good condition, and with a nice band you can steal. Personally, I'm fine with people doing this, unless it gets into massive restoration that you don't tell a buyer about; then it's unethical not to disclose it.
 
not totally uncharacteristic...
I tend to agree with you; "I" think he was a MUCH better writer than painter/artist. The example 'hoochmonkey' linked looks (once again, to 'me') bad/amateurish, but I really like the two examples (especially the top one) from CRUCIFIX. That's a nice copy you have!
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
I find his drawings/paintings were hit and miss. but, really, he never claimed to be a painter. but that being said, I think his instincts were pretty good.
 
I think it would be an excellent book/item to PRESENT the artwork of Bukowski... I think it's a GREAT idea and you could span the abstract, doodles, etc.. works he created...
?
 

mjp

Founding member
That has been discussed here before, though with the best paintings in "art book" form, not the doodles. There is actually a small art book publisher who has expressed interest, but I don't know about the logistics of photographing a good cross section of the art...it is so scattered around...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top