Electronica backing to a Bukowski poem.

Discussion in 'Video, audio, film and other media' started by workproductions, Jan 30, 2008.

  1. You know, I went to bat for you here slugger, but
    I'm gonn'a let you swing away now.

    The Buk-moting, so that the average joe may be
    exposed, is a wee bit arrogant.

    In other words, someone will now read Bukowski
    because of you, when they wouldn't have otherwise? Okay. ;)

    Hey. I'll try once more. Why not?

    What are you listening to?
    Seen any good movies?
    What is your favorite . . . ?

    - -
    Father Luke
  2. I was introduced to Bukowski through a recommendation by a friend of mine to watch his documentary, not through reading his poetry... Although, I subsequently began collecting Bukowski's literature and have since gifted friends with copies of his work.

    If it weren't for the film however, I would probably not have encountered Bukowski.

    Few of my peers read poetry for entertainment... Many however listen to music, and watch films.
  3. uh-oh!
    my photoshop is starting right now!
    hold me back, kids!
  4. I appreciate your discontent with the Track. It was not my intention to disrespect the Bukowski's work in any way. [...] The goal being to promote Bukowski's work, not mine... In a way that I felt allowed the poem a degree of access and appeal to the average joe, which it may not have had otherwise.[/QUOTE]Two big "buts" here, partner; first, I didn't listen to or express any discontent with "the track."

    Second, the "average Joe" does not listen to electronica. The average Joe listens to Proud to be an American, the music on commercials on ESPN, and whatever his girlfriend tunes the radio to when they are in the truck together.

    You can see by the musical tastes in a few threads here that this is not an "average Joe" crowd, so you have to expect that the bar is going to be raised a little higher for whatever you bring through the door.

    There is no shame in promoting your creative work here.

    Lots of us do it. But if I pimp my books or art or glitter covered Converse high tops incessantly and someone buys from me and then comes in here and says, "You know, this is crap," then I have to take that criticism as it comes.

    My question, going back to the beginning of this, is why you consider what you did art. I am interested because I happen to experience a lot of art in my life, and a lot of times I say, "This isn't art, it's a pile of tar paper," "This is just a jar full of bottle caps," or "He's just hitting a pillow with a stick, how is that music?" and I get in arguments with people who apparently know more about art than I do, because they say I'm wrong. It is art.

    But at least they try to explain to me why it's art. We may not agree when all is said and done, but they don't say, "Well, I couldn't explain why. It's like trying to describe the smell of rotten fish to someone born without a sense of smell," which is sort of what you did.
  5. I meant too much introspection on my part, not yours, although you're welcome to take it up, too. I thought that might not be clear. I know the source of my anger -- have a notebook full of screaming raging anger poems about deep piles of stinking shit at work. But I disappoint myself when I lash at out any one for any reason unless it's truly called for. I check myself constantly. And that is too much introspection.
  6. This is hilarious...

    One of the reasons it is funny is it seems like workproductions is trying to imply that mjp is someone "who may never have created anything of their own expression, ever..."

    Am I wrong or is that what he was implying?

    That's funny.

    I like the use of the ellipses though.
  7. Seems so, doesn't it. At least I know I'm not the only one who reads it that way.
  8. From Wikipedia's entry for art...

    "Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art. "

    "The evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans.[2] An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced."

    Explaining this definition through an analogy to the difficulty of defining color to one who has not experienced it is a valid comparison in my estimation of the philosophical implications.
  9. Well, there you have it. If it says so on Wikipedia it absolutely must be true.

    Not trying to be a smart-ass here (don't have to since it comes naturally), but I could go over to Wikipedia right now and change the definition to read "Art is what you get when you don't move your bowels often enough." Wikipedia is far from the final word on anything. Just ask ***ERIC IS A FAG***.
  10. Seeing the light

    I'll use this an opportunity to educate. I work in a school for those with blindness (deafness too). We talk about color all the time-the mistake you make the assumption you make is that color is only seen.

    This week there is a dance put on by the students with deafness-some of the kids with blindness are going to buy new out fits-it's a real blast...You can bet your ass they will play Metallica but Electronic I don't know. They like most kids like stuff with balls.

    There is a great movie Aussie movie about a a photographer who is blind-Proof

    Art has to challenge or change perception for me and I think for most who take expression seriously it would be the same or close to the same.
  11. So you incapable of explaining what you believe. Why didn't you just say so?

    as the
  12. hank solo

    hank solo Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights Vice President First 9 Reaper Crew ROAD CAPTAIN Unholy Ones

    This thread really needs locking... but hey, that was funny. Kinda mean, but funny.
  13. Gerard K H Love

    Gerard K H Love Appreciate your friends Men of Mayhem

    Don't lock this, please, there is love here.
  14. I admit that I am unable to define what is, and is not Art outside of referencing the intentions of the "Artist"...

    Thus, I am sincerely interested in hearing what YOUR definition of art is.

    PS. I vote against locking the thread. Outside of the pettiness and immaturity evident throughout, I feel this subject is valid, especially considering the "low brow" appeal and ease of accessibility that much of Bukowski's work embodies.

  15. Eh?
  16. I feel I have been misquoted concerning the Intentions of the "Artist."

    I am not content with the definition that if a person calls something Art, then by definition it is...

    Yet, I believe this is a widely held definition, which I can easily portray through consideration of a large sector of Modern Art... Abstract, Post-Modern, Sculpture, etc.

    Impressionism lies at the foundation of this debate, yet few would argue that Van Gogh was not an Artist...

    Was Bukowski an "Artist?"
  17. A good friend of mine once defined art quite simply as "Art is criticism." I believe the quote came from someone else, but I've no idea after 20 years. Of course, one needs to consider the word criticism as both positive and negative; in other words, an observation or an opinion. You cannot create something without making it from your persepective; hence it is based on your observations and opinions.
  18. Ha ha ha ha.

    You are a funny guy.

    As for the question, "what is art?" Tolstoy took a shot at it:

  19. Gerard K H Love

    Gerard K H Love Appreciate your friends Men of Mayhem

    Where's that horse?
  20. Bump.
  21. 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.
  22. I think you'll have a lot of bumping to do if you want him to answer a direct question.
  23. hank solo

    hank solo Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights Vice President First 9 Reaper Crew ROAD CAPTAIN Unholy Ones

    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'.

  24. 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?
  25. I wonder how Cage would've approached music to Buk?

  26. hank solo

    hank solo Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights Vice President First 9 Reaper Crew ROAD CAPTAIN Unholy Ones

    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.
  27. Thanks.
  28. The Piano recital was a man putting his music to
    Bukowski's Poems.

    He hoped to bring people to Bukowski's work.


    - -
    Father Luke
  29. 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.

Share This Page