Father Luke
Founding member
Bump.
Electronica backing to a Bukowski poem. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter workproductions
- Start date
Bump.
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
I f a creator is to be concerned with pretty, he shoots himself in the foot. It can be very paralyzing to do something to please others.
Meaning , that he is trying and not doing.
Whether someone is using his privilege to judge, and by what canons of beauty is another story, another topic. These canons have always changed throughout recorded art history.
You can never please everyone.Everyone knows that great artists have been ignored because their style did not reflect what was being viewed as beautiful during their lifetime.
The value of something is even more remote from creation, then we are talking business.
Personally I encourage everyone who feels inspired to go for it.
Whether I like it or not should not concern anyone else.
Meaning , that he is trying and not doing.
Whether someone is using his privilege to judge, and by what canons of beauty is another story, another topic. These canons have always changed throughout recorded art history.
You can never please everyone.Everyone knows that great artists have been ignored because their style did not reflect what was being viewed as beautiful during their lifetime.
The value of something is even more remote from creation, then we are talking business.
Personally I encourage everyone who feels inspired to go for it.
Whether I like it or not should not concern anyone else.
mjp
Founding member
I think you'll have a lot of bumping to do if you want him to answer a direct question.
I just listened to Bukowski reading Earthquake with the beats and squeaks and whatnot and I prefer the original reading without the beats. The tempo is about right, and more or less matches the rhythm that Bukowski lends to the piece himself, but my opinion is that it doesn't add to the reading. If you want to do this sort of thing and enjoy doing it fair enough, but I don't believe that it will work on this audience (Bukowski.net members) for all sorts of reasons.
Some people might like it though. Maybe if they like the style of music, and the spoken word recording too that's a start?
For instance, I've have a white label of a breaks track called laid over it and it works for me. But I imagine that it really wouldn't for a lot of other people, including Saul Williams 'fans'.
Some people might like it though. Maybe if they like the style of music, and the spoken word recording too that's a start?
For instance, I've have a white label of a breaks track called laid over it and it works for me. But I imagine that it really wouldn't for a lot of other people, including Saul Williams 'fans'.
I am not a fan of the piano recital (Krinkski) video... ;)
Yet I am a fan of Saul Williams. :D
PS. Why did you edit the title of this thread to include a typo?
Yet I am a fan of Saul Williams. :D
PS. Why did you edit the title of this thread to include a typo?
I wonder how Cage would've approached music to Buk?
joe
joe
This thread was just merged with your earlier thread. The typo was already there (in the earlier title).
Edit: Brand new title added.
Old title: Bukowski reading himself... Set to Electro: Beats !!!
New: Electronica backing to a Bukowski poem.
Thanks.
Father Luke
Founding member
The Piano recital was a man putting his music to
Bukowski's Poems.
He hoped to bring people to Bukowski's work.
;)
- -
Okay,
Father Luke
one of the problems is, people always seem to Need a definition of everything, while art is something, that eludes itself from definition by nature.
another problem here is, we have to differ between the question 'what is art?' and 'what is good/bad art?' - i guess, when mjp (for example) says about anything, that it isn't art, he means, it isn't 'good' or 'valid' art - NOT in the sense, that he simply don't likes it, but he doesn't 'get' what would be 'art' about it. (i fear i don't find the right words, but hope you get the gist.)
in other words, when we say, this or that is or is not art, we usually bring our own valuation into discussion.
i try to avoid that. so i'm able to see a lot of things as 'art' even if i don't like em.
back to the need for a 'definition':
the word ART comes from ARTIFICIAL and originally meant Anything, that was created by man. (as an opposite to 'nature')
obviously this is an extremely wide definition. seeing it this way makes even Valerian to be an artist. but this doesn't mean, he's a good one.
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
Bukowski gets all the exposure he needs on the strength of his writing, so the idea that anyone would be attempting to promote his work doesn't make sense to me. He's one of the most popular authors ever. I think if someone has the potential to enjoy Bukowski, they probably will run into his work on their own, without being directed to it..
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
Although I like turning someone on to Bukowski.
To me it is an act of love, a tool to manage madness, a road map, a windbreaker...
To me it is an act of love, a tool to manage madness, a road map, a windbreaker...
Bukowski wrote an essay in "Trace" back in 1959 in which he objects to the use of jazz to accompany poetry--what many of the Beat poets were doing. I think he was a kind of "purist" about poetry and just wanted the spoken word, "nailed to the page" as I think he says somewhere. He even resisted giving READINGS for a long time.
I'm a classical music fan, so this question interests me. For example, back in the Sixties Walter Carlos (now Wendy) released "Switched-On Bach" which was Bach on the Moog synthesizer and I thought a good deal of it was great. You can play Bach on the harmonica and it sounds good. But would Bach have approved? Probably. Also, what about a performance of "Hamlet" in which everyone is dressed in modern business suits? (Which I've seen). Or "modernizing" classic texts in Illustrated Comics? Or a comic book version of Proust (which exists)? Or should artist's own desires be respected? A slightly unrelated but related point: Vladmir Nabokov did not want the novel he was working on--"The Original of Laura"--to be published--he wanted the manuscript to be destroyed. But his son Dmitri recently has decided to publish it. They say Virgil wanted the "Aeneid" to be destroyed, and Kafka told Max Brod to destroy his work. So who does the "work of art" "belong to"? OK< more questions than answers here, but these questions have always intrigued me.
I wonder whether ART for many of us becomes a substitute for the SACRED (not "religion", but the place where the "Truth" is revealed), thus we have a PROTECTIVE feeling about works of "Art". They are HOLY GODDAMNIT SO DONT
FUCK WITH THEM>!!!!:):):)
PS unrelated/related thought: I just remembered that ALdous Huxley once, when looking at a copy of the avant-garde publication "transition" back in the Twenties turned to a friend and said :"No, it isn't art" which is the title of the magazine backwards with a small change: TRA[T]SITION. That Aldous was a clever boy
I'm a classical music fan, so this question interests me. For example, back in the Sixties Walter Carlos (now Wendy) released "Switched-On Bach" which was Bach on the Moog synthesizer and I thought a good deal of it was great. You can play Bach on the harmonica and it sounds good. But would Bach have approved? Probably. Also, what about a performance of "Hamlet" in which everyone is dressed in modern business suits? (Which I've seen). Or "modernizing" classic texts in Illustrated Comics? Or a comic book version of Proust (which exists)? Or should artist's own desires be respected? A slightly unrelated but related point: Vladmir Nabokov did not want the novel he was working on--"The Original of Laura"--to be published--he wanted the manuscript to be destroyed. But his son Dmitri recently has decided to publish it. They say Virgil wanted the "Aeneid" to be destroyed, and Kafka told Max Brod to destroy his work. So who does the "work of art" "belong to"? OK< more questions than answers here, but these questions have always intrigued me.
I wonder whether ART for many of us becomes a substitute for the SACRED (not "religion", but the place where the "Truth" is revealed), thus we have a PROTECTIVE feeling about works of "Art". They are HOLY GODDAMNIT SO DONT
FUCK WITH THEM>!!!!:):):)
PS unrelated/related thought: I just remembered that ALdous Huxley once, when looking at a copy of the avant-garde publication "transition" back in the Twenties turned to a friend and said :"No, it isn't art" which is the title of the magazine backwards with a small change: TRA[T]SITION. That Aldous was a clever boy
mjp
Founding member
I get your gist, brother. But I am indeed always questioning what is art. Not what is good or bad art. Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, or victim, depending on the circumstances.
As much as it pains me to say it, VALERIAN is an artist. Assuming the awful "music" under his caterwauling is original, I have to classify it as art.
That clown who played Bach music on a piano and sang Bukowski words is not an artist. He merged two things, he has created nothing.
Club DJs are not artists, they create nothing. "Look at his/her skill in getting a crowd to dance!" No son, the music on the records, made by musicians (artists), is what makes the people dance.
Burroughs cut-ups of print or film media (that he didn't create) are not art.
If you co-opt Bukowski's life story and write poetry or prose about what a low-life gambling whoremonger you are, you have created nothing.
If you start a band that sounds just like Green Day because you love Green Day, you have created nothing. You are copying copiers. Maybe you've created less than nothing in that case. Some kind of anti-matter. I don't know, I will have to look that up.
Marcel Duchamp hanging a urinal on a gallery wall is not art.
Create something out of nothing, that's art. Use, abuse, bend, adapt other peoples work (or toilets), you are not creating anything. You're adapting, and adapting is for the lazy, the talentless and every screenwriter in Hollywood.
That's just my admittedly biased opinion, and I understand it's largely generational, and that of someone who finds most conceptual art laughably idiotic, and the people who admire it sheep who need to be told what is significant or important to them, who to vote for, what to listen to, what to eat, etc., etc., etc.
It's hard to be original in art, music, the way you walk, how you look - it's very difficult. I understand. But we are awash in a tidal wave of shit since the advent of personal computers, and we would be much better off without 99% of it.
The alternative before that wasn't perfect either, with a few companies deciding what would be entertainment. But it's just too easy now, and the result is the tidal wave.
15 or 20 years ago the kid in his bedroom with his music under a Bukowski track, or the Bukowski imitator with his poems or even someone who wanted to start a legitimate literary or music magazine had to work like hell to get even a few people to notice them. You had to suffer and sweat and like it or not, it separated those who were serious about what they were doing from the dilettantes. But that filter is gone now and I do not think we are better off for it.
Fucking hell, too much typing. Sorry, I got wound up there. "Stop it you kids! Don't excite grandpa!" Ha.
To further complicate things, what is the relationship between art, advertising, and propaganda? I hadn't thought of this until recently, but look at those THOUSANDS of Madonnas and baby Jesuses painted and sculpted and built and drawn and etc by THOUSANDS of Italian, German, Flemish, French, etc artists during the Renaissance. Art, or propaganda for the Catholic church? Or Leni Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will"?
I think I'm with mjp about Duchamp etc. And Andy Warhol. Could never figure out that a silkscreen of a Campbell's Soup Can is art. Also PHOTOGRAPHERS/ They point the camera and shoot. But then they get all fussy and say NO NO, we are ARTISTES because oui oui we must make the click just at right moment and the lighting must be just so and etc etc therefore we are Creators!
Jackson Pollock. Is that art?
Aleatoric music--John Cage. Just picking notes at random with the I Ching or having a guy sit at the piano for 4 minutes and 33 seconds in silence.
Blank canvases.
Canvases all in blue.
Or red.
Poems like: kxckvue9r9c8vyc=e0gucivubvb
odogidpspspssp
kblfpvvpv
##%^&*()_!!!
Hey man, cool we are all fucking artists!:):):)
I think I'm with mjp about Duchamp etc. And Andy Warhol. Could never figure out that a silkscreen of a Campbell's Soup Can is art. Also PHOTOGRAPHERS/ They point the camera and shoot. But then they get all fussy and say NO NO, we are ARTISTES because oui oui we must make the click just at right moment and the lighting must be just so and etc etc therefore we are Creators!
Jackson Pollock. Is that art?
Aleatoric music--John Cage. Just picking notes at random with the I Ching or having a guy sit at the piano for 4 minutes and 33 seconds in silence.
Blank canvases.
Canvases all in blue.
Or red.
Poems like: kxckvue9r9c8vyc=e0gucivubvb
odogidpspspssp
kblfpvvpv
##%^&*()_!!!
Hey man, cool we are all fucking artists!:):):)
mjp
Founding member
Hell yes.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
I appreciate this threads change of direction... And largely agree with the thoughts and beliefs laid out above.
I am not ready to defend that my use of the Bukowski Reading necessarily disqualifies the "Track" as art, and would certainly not defend that the incorporation of Bukowski's words ought to classify the Track as art...
I admit that my original statement "I call it art" was presumptive, yet it is a conversation like that above, which I was hoping to initiate.
I agree that using a Bukowski Reading without consent, could easily be considered a misuse of the material... I'm sorry if my comments raised the blood pressures of the forum member's here, yet again, I appreciate the conversation that has / is being developed.
I will work on developing an "all-original" piece (i.e. original poetry with original music) and would love to hear the reaction given from Bukowski.net Members.
I will not "beat a dead horse", and thus will not be working with anymore pre-recorded spoken word without consent.
I truly appreciate your input.
Love and Respect to one and all...
I am not ready to defend that my use of the Bukowski Reading necessarily disqualifies the "Track" as art, and would certainly not defend that the incorporation of Bukowski's words ought to classify the Track as art...
I admit that my original statement "I call it art" was presumptive, yet it is a conversation like that above, which I was hoping to initiate.
I agree that using a Bukowski Reading without consent, could easily be considered a misuse of the material... I'm sorry if my comments raised the blood pressures of the forum member's here, yet again, I appreciate the conversation that has / is being developed.
I will work on developing an "all-original" piece (i.e. original poetry with original music) and would love to hear the reaction given from Bukowski.net Members.
I will not "beat a dead horse", and thus will not be working with anymore pre-recorded spoken word without consent.
I truly appreciate your input.
Love and Respect to one and all...
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Great job hanging in there and taking quite a beating. I hope many of us will grow to appreciate you and what you shall grow into here at this very wonderful place.
Sometimes the blood pressure needs to go up a bit.
Thank you and have a nice day. Looking forward to many productive threads and posts.:);)
mjp
Founding member
Oh come on, workproductions hardly "took a beating" here.
If the creator of some kind of art or entertainment can't be bothered to defend it, then to me, it is worthless.
Sorry, I prefer a little passion in my artists.
Okay, a lot of passion!
This has been a lot of polite, raised-pinky teacup bullshit. Someone BREAK SOMETHING for christ's sake!
Next we'll be discussing the merits of cosplay as artistic expression. I can see it now...
If the creator of some kind of art or entertainment can't be bothered to defend it, then to me, it is worthless.
Sorry, I prefer a little passion in my artists.
Okay, a lot of passion!
This has been a lot of polite, raised-pinky teacup bullshit. Someone BREAK SOMETHING for christ's sake!
Next we'll be discussing the merits of cosplay as artistic expression. I can see it now...
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
no, they are like the Monkies or rock, or more like The Partridge Family...
Bill
Bill
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Oh, don't get me wrong. It would be funny to hear that on the radio the same way that it would be funny to hear "I Think I Love You", but that does mot mean that I think that they are good songs.
Bill
Bill
ROC
It is what it is
Well if you want passion, I hope it suffices for me to say that your above diatribe on what does and does not constitute art is 100% pure weapons grade bullonium. You jump onto very slippery slope with this kind of stuff and you just end up sounding like a bitter old fuck.
Don't worry... I'm not far behind.
And what's with doodles on other peoples books and punk rock - is that art? Well... if you say so.
Duchamp is an artist - he created art. Valerian is not.
And I will rationalise it as you did.
Like this;
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Alternative ART, Man
This is Art!
lol
This is Art!
lol
mjp
Founding member
You're trying to insult me, but I don't care what you think of me, or what I do now or what I did 30 years ago. I would rather everything was groovy and we all got along, but if we don't, we don't.
As for bitterness, a lot of people equate any kind of strong opinion with bitterness, or assume that anger always has an element of bitterness, which is unfortunate, but not my problem.
But to put the onus on me to defend things I am not presenting here doesn't make any sense.
ROC
It is what it is
Oh hell, I'm not trying to insult you... I think you're groovy and I think this argument is healthy and important (though I maybe alone on that one).
But you did state what is and is not art and I don't agree with your opinions and I know (knew) that you would not care if I seem pissy.
"If the creator of some kind of art or entertainment can't be bothered to defend it, then to me, it is worthless."
Well, I feel the same way about opinions to a great extent.
I'm saying the definition of art is largely based on cultural conventions and those conventions are always changing. To state that a club DJ is not an artist or that he is not creating anything new is entirely up for grabs.
As for Duchamp, he, like Cage, knew more about the question of what constitutes art than you or me. Which is why the jury is still out on both of them.
Apologies if I come off sounding like a bitter old fuck.
But you did state what is and is not art and I don't agree with your opinions and I know (knew) that you would not care if I seem pissy.
"If the creator of some kind of art or entertainment can't be bothered to defend it, then to me, it is worthless."
Well, I feel the same way about opinions to a great extent.
I'm saying the definition of art is largely based on cultural conventions and those conventions are always changing. To state that a club DJ is not an artist or that he is not creating anything new is entirely up for grabs.
As for Duchamp, he, like Cage, knew more about the question of what constitutes art than you or me. Which is why the jury is still out on both of them.
Apologies if I come off sounding like a bitter old fuck.
Did he create it, or just create it? "Nude Descending a Staircase" is brilliant, if not strange. If I take a dump from the top of the Empire State Building, I'm hoping that I've done something that noone else has ever done. It's not art, though, even if noone has ever done it. But if I did, someone else would bronze theirs, wrap it in purple tissue paper (to mock the Pope) and use a 7-iron to knock it off the Brooklyn bridge. Art? Or metallurgical sacriledge?
I'm not arguing, just blitzed. :cool:
ROC
It is what it is
I understand but don't agree with this (seeming) preoccupation with originality.
As in - "I'm hoping that I've done something that no one else has ever done" or
"Create something out of nothing, that's art".
I know you are all aware that most every form we work with is ancient.
In music you are manipulating sounds - there's very little new to be done - same with language. And yet we could all agree, when something great comes along, that it treats old material in a novel or important new way.
Maybe we can admit that mounting a turd on the empire state building could be construed as art.... just not very good art?
I certainly don't have the answers.
I just get nervous when someone else claims to.
For me the teacher in this department is John Cage.
For him, art was a philosophical perspective from which all was viewed.
By claiming the right to use whatever means and materials were at his disposal, he threw the entire art world on its head.
And what about indigenous 'art'? Most pieces were not created as works of art in the western sense. Now they form parts of major galleries and command huge prices and great respect in the art world.
We define art on an ongoing basis. And while this does not mean we should reserve judgment, we might exercise caution in doing so.
For some reason this whole debate reminds me of the Bukowski line "They say nothing is wasted. Either that, or it all is".
Substitute 'wasted' with art?
As in - "I'm hoping that I've done something that no one else has ever done" or
"Create something out of nothing, that's art".
I know you are all aware that most every form we work with is ancient.
In music you are manipulating sounds - there's very little new to be done - same with language. And yet we could all agree, when something great comes along, that it treats old material in a novel or important new way.
Maybe we can admit that mounting a turd on the empire state building could be construed as art.... just not very good art?
I certainly don't have the answers.
I just get nervous when someone else claims to.
For me the teacher in this department is John Cage.
For him, art was a philosophical perspective from which all was viewed.
By claiming the right to use whatever means and materials were at his disposal, he threw the entire art world on its head.
And what about indigenous 'art'? Most pieces were not created as works of art in the western sense. Now they form parts of major galleries and command huge prices and great respect in the art world.
We define art on an ongoing basis. And while this does not mean we should reserve judgment, we might exercise caution in doing so.
For some reason this whole debate reminds me of the Bukowski line "They say nothing is wasted. Either that, or it all is".
Substitute 'wasted' with art?
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
The dicussion here has to do with traditionnal art and conceptual art.
It never mixes well with the purists. On one side you have the technicians who employ their technical skills to produce a piece of art that the public can admire as such, and then the conceptual artist, such as Duchamp introducing the readymades. It was an important step to bring on the subject of conceptual art or at least to make room for it, so there could be an art revival. It is a discourse intending to change the perspective of the spectator, to involve people into the creation process, to get them to participate by reacting.Generally it is negative because of the minimalist approach of the piece itself. But once you get the idea, the work is done. I read a text by Joseph Kosuth in the 60's and hate what I saw, originally. He would basically type the word chair on a tiny piece of paper , and stick it on the wall. His text is called" art as an idea, as an idea".It took me at least 3 reads to get it, and 2 years to get over it. But I did.I am ready to say that I would not want to live with that type of art ( the paper bit), but my vision has changed, it has opened my heart to a variety of different styles. I can now appreciate a selection of Haida masks made from Nike running shoes for instance, and no one can tell me that they are not beautiful masks because the idea is there, plus technical skills.
It never mixes well with the purists. On one side you have the technicians who employ their technical skills to produce a piece of art that the public can admire as such, and then the conceptual artist, such as Duchamp introducing the readymades. It was an important step to bring on the subject of conceptual art or at least to make room for it, so there could be an art revival. It is a discourse intending to change the perspective of the spectator, to involve people into the creation process, to get them to participate by reacting.Generally it is negative because of the minimalist approach of the piece itself. But once you get the idea, the work is done. I read a text by Joseph Kosuth in the 60's and hate what I saw, originally. He would basically type the word chair on a tiny piece of paper , and stick it on the wall. His text is called" art as an idea, as an idea".It took me at least 3 reads to get it, and 2 years to get over it. But I did.I am ready to say that I would not want to live with that type of art ( the paper bit), but my vision has changed, it has opened my heart to a variety of different styles. I can now appreciate a selection of Haida masks made from Nike running shoes for instance, and no one can tell me that they are not beautiful masks because the idea is there, plus technical skills.
Nobody can create in a vacuum. Nobody can create without using other people's words. Your personality is made up of other peoples words, beginning with your mammy's. Originality needs to merge with banality. There's no escape. Its all in the balance of things. To much focus on originality often ends up in abstruse introvertness (and lack of humor!). Always look for an inkling of ironic, nonpretentious humor in great art. Be wary if you can't find it.
I dunno about this outlook. Sounds like something a scribe might have said about the printing press in the 1500s. In the 1700s the norwegian/danish author Ludwig Holberg was complaining about all the rubbish coming out because of the printing press. I think its more like this: in an oral culture you have to face your audience more directly. The net is bringing this back into the forefront. Sure, lots of tripe will appear, but thats the price you pay for the new possibilities.
And don't forget a prime example of the new possibilities - I mean this net-site! Here we are with our heads out of our books/navels type/talking to real ppl instead of looking into the dark humorless depths of our troubled souls...:cool:
ROC
It is what it is
Not really.
This is not considered conceptual art...
And neither is this...
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.
But some people have a real problem calling these art (apparently).
Likewise, the matter of indigenous art is not centred around traditional v conceptual. Rather, the issue seems to be taste and context.
mjp
Founding member
The Holberg bit is interesting, but the printing press was not a tool that was inexpensive or easily accessed by the masses. Not until the 1950's when duplication technology became cheap enough to spur on the explosion of mimeo literary magazines and radical publications in the 60's. The internet is the mimeo/Xerox revolution multiplied by a million.
There is no comparison between facing a live, hostile audience, and meeting with hostility on the internet. The first time someone calls you an asshole online it's kind of shocking. But at least they can't throw a beer bottle at your head. On the other hand, you can be praised beyond all reason by the web masses too, so it cuts both ways.
And eventually you realize that everyone is exceptionally brave and outspoken online, and learn to dismiss 99% of everything that drags its tired ass across your screen. Kind of like TV.
But I am tired of reading myself and my views and my skewed worldview around here. That's what blogs are for: a convenient way for everyone to ignore you from one central location. So, enough about me me me. I am beginning to bore myself, so I can only imagine how the experience is from the other end of the wire.
Similar threads
