Quote:
|
Originally Posted by racehorse
yeah, for sure, although what makes bukowski great to me (although not drastically original as glice pointed out. ) is the focus and insight on the unimportant everyday details which make up life.
"the miniscule is the proper domain for the artist" is a quote i remember from somewhere. (obviously joyce and co. were using this technique years before, and the buddhist zen poets centuries before)
but anyway, that's why i think he is wonderful, breaking down the barrier between artist and audience by describing easily relatable details that break down the alienation between writer and reader.
|
1. The writer is always alienated from the reader, and vice versa: The mechanistics of absence, the medium, the intangible force of interpretation will always mean that whatever the writer means cannot be understood in its entirety by the reader, and what the reader understands will never be heard by the writer. The writer's skill lies in appealing to enough alienated (in a different sense) people, not by breaking down the alienation.
2. I have a personal thing about conflating religious edicts with artistic ones. Very loosely, as a post-enlightenment artefact [sic], art is primarily concerned with an individual's interpretation of the world as s/he sees it. Religion, and many pre-englightenment works, are concerned with expressing the 'art' for the society (in non-religious works) or expressing the metaphysical/ spiritual/ epistemelogical [alleged] needs of a group or potential group. Where similarities occur is only in the post-enlightenment artist converging to a similar point for the religion, never vice-versa. Nonetheless, the individual's art, expression of the world takes precedence over any commonalities with religion (even if the artist is expressing his/ her religious self).
3. Personally, I can appreciate that a lot of people like to see the mundane exalted in art, and I do so myself. I'm a fan of Billy Bragg, and Beckett (who I was reading today) does a wonderful job of saying nothing. However, in Bukowski I feel this exaltation of the mundane is merely an expression - Thomas Hardy (for me, the zenith of mundane writing), meanwhile, can make the most absurdly fastiduous reams of florid prose spring tenfold on merely a few seconds of mundane dialogue/ narrative. It's very much a personal thing, of course.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by candymoan
Literature is a matter of taste.. there is nothing to discuss apart from views on specific topics regarding a writer..
|
There is plenty to discuss, always. 'Taste' is too bland and insipid a non-sequitur to leave unexplored, and this discussion hitherto (save a moment's light relief/ laconic nonsense) is exploring what this taste means in relation to Bukowski, with the exception of a few boorish individuals who are incapable of involving themselves in a discussion on any level. This last comment is not, in any way, shape, or form, directed at yourself.