Bukowski and Slam Poetry

[vodka]

First of all, the competitive aspect of Poetry Slams is nauseating and completely frat-boyish.

all poetry, on a certain level especially a publication level, becomes competitive. everyone judges the works of other as bad or good, worthy or unworthy, likable or unlikable depending on how they personally define these things every time they read it. these people are just doing it more loudly.

They seemed to be hogging the light, doing verbal gymnastics just to get a grade from the crowd, while spending too much time focusing on their physical delivery of the word, than focusing on the words themselves.

just about every reading/art gathering i've been to has had this feel to it regardless of whether or not it was specifically intended for 'slam'. everyone who is reading a piece is, in some way, acting it out. it's almost inevitable.

that being said, i will say once more that i am not fond of slam. i sincerely cannot watch it without ending up having too much to drink, becoming cynical and laughing into my hand enough that whoever i'm with usually ends up becoming embarrassed and i have to leave. i don't know why - it just gives me the giggles.

and that being said i feel the need to say that i don't think it's okay to completely disregard any form of art, even if it's making entire painting collections with semen and menstrual blood. (i.e.http://jeniferwills.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/theres-not-much-rage-in-a-lower-case-i/) that these people are making an attempt at making art which is relevant to them as cool as far as i'm concerned. just because i don't really get it or see it's relevance doesn't mean that it has none.

edit: it should be noted in this thread that there are many people who don't see the relevance of Bukowski's work. that should mean something here, i think.

 

[Magick Stallion]

Of course it's a highly competitive field, but I guess what I was trying to say is that it's really, unusually funny when you see the score cards shoot up after one delivers their poem, either giving them a 10 or 1. And yes, the slam poets are doing it loudlier than a "poet" sitting down in a cardigan at some mom and pop bookstore giving a reading.

Having the unfortunate experience of going to readings myself, I've noticed that poets, regardless of how biting or punchy the poems may be, ARE acting it out to some degree, it's just that slam poets tend to be THAT guy/girl in your drama class that never stopped acting when class was over, dramatizing the crime scene or rape scenario while screaming his/her lines.

Completely agree. This is an utterly different medium that they are working within, I just personally don't care for it. They're not a troupe of talentless baboons. It's quite electrically obvious to the most casual observer, that they staunchly believe in their art, and themselves, which is great.
Again, I'm not going to dismiss it with a wave of my hand, however, I'm going to say that I simply cannot connect with the thespian aesthetic as well as the way they write, or at least, most of them.

edit: it should be noted in this thread that there are many people who don't see the relevance of Bukowski's work. that should mean something here, i think.

He had relevance? j/k

 

[vodka]

He had relevance? j/k

laughing. i get what you're saying. and honestly i am in agreement.

jen

 

[plasteredpoet]

And another thing....

Vodka, you've hit upon something that I have an issue with. Art made of semen and blood. Wow. Let's all get one.

Here's my take on the whole art issue: I believe the national endowment for the arts giving grants to "ARTISTS" is a practice that should be done away with entirely.

I love art. Moreso than most people. I do not, however, believe in any publicly funded organization handing out money to someone simply to create art.

I like to believe Bukowski would agree to some extent. After all, the man truly suffered for his art, languishing in hell holes and grinding away at worthless jobs, suffereing to become a great artist. I believe he would feel that the "P.H.D. ARTISTS" would fall into the same ctegory as the "P.H.D. POETS" and we all know how much he loathed that crew.

I believe that the only thing that determines artistic value is the community into which the art is entered, and that's it. If you put a show together and sell nothing then your work is worthless to the art community. The problem is that so many "ARTISTS" that do this will turn around and demand a grant from the govt. Why? It's obvious the value of your work was seen as less than stellar, what makes you think you deserve funding?

If one wants to create art then it is upon his/her head to do something that connects, not the taxpayers.

 

[mjp]

I do not, however, believe in any publicly funded organization handing out money to someone simply to create art.

I like to believe Bukowski would agree to some extent.

He applied for arts grants and got at least one, so you may have to rethink that.

 

[Digney in Burnaby]

A quote I've recently come across from reading Portions, the 1973 essay on being an "aged poet":

Most poets read badly. They are either too vain or too stupid. They read too low or too loud. And, of course, most of their poetry is bad. But the audience hardly notices. They are personality gazing. And they laugh at the wrong time and like the wrong poems for the wrong reasons. But bad poets create bad audiences; death brings more death. (p. 123)

Bukowski did readings because he was paid to do so. He wasn't intentionally competing although there's always the hecklers in the crowd. But they had paid as well to be there.

From the few slam youtube videos I've seen (and Vancouver, BC seems to be a slam kind of town) I'd say the readers and the audience are still on equal footing.

 

[plasteredpoet]

He applied for arts grants and got at least one, so you may have to rethink that.

When did he apply?

I am a bit surprised by that, knowing his history with the government and his point of view with the environs of acadamia, not to mention general authority.

Most likely it was out there and He'd be a fool not to try for the free money, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it is a practice which I abhor.

Mainly due to the fact that a pig sliced in twain and preserved in fomaldehyde isn't something that requires talent. Nor is dropping a crucifix into a jar of piss. Both of these were acts of "art" committed with government funding. The artist figures" hey, I got paid, there is no reason for me to try and create anything with talent, I'll slap something together and call it social commentary.

"My Kid Could Paint That"

As soon as its out there someone with a degree in art will be there telling you that you are shallow if you don't emrace it, and that it is relevant for......(insert rationalization here)

 

[bospress.net]

"My Kid Could Paint That"

That is exactly what my wife says when she sees the abstract Buk paintings....

Still, putting a crucifix in piss is art, it may not be to your liking, but it is art. So is putting a bukowski poem inside a bottle of beer.

It is nice to see the government spend a little on arts when they spend SOOOO much on war.

Anyone know what the total budget for the NEA is? I bet that it is a really painfully small amount with you look at the cost of the war, the debt of Sarah Palin's pork projects....

Bill

 

[vodka]

sometimes i think art takes more balls than talent. both are rare. both are important.

 

[mjp]

When did he apply?

In 1974 he recieved $5,000 from the NEA to allow him time to work on a novel (of course he hadn't worked a "regular" job for a few years at the time, so the NEA application was likely creatively embellished). That's equivalent to getting a check for $20,000 today. A substantial piece of change.

Also, from a 1972 interview:

STONECLOUD: I gather you're sort of down on things like teaching positions, fellowships, prizes...

BUKOWSKI: I'll take them all! I have nothing against money that allows me time to write, but I've never applied. I was sitting around with some professors one night. Miller Williams and two others, and one of these guys gets a scholarship every year. He goes to a little island. He's a nice guy - a fair poet - maybe he deserves it. I'm sitting there drinking and I say "OK, goddamn you bastards, you get these things; all I want to ask is where do I get the form to fill out, at the corner drugstore, or where you buy a racing form? Where do you guys get these papers?" I really got in a fury, and they wouldn't answer me, they all looked at me. Then I said "Tell me, goddamnit Where do I get a paper to fill out?"

STONECLOUD: Well, you've got to have a Ph.D. or at least a master's degree.

BUKOWSKI: Oh shit, no wonder they wouldn't say! They were trying not to hurt my feelings.

 

[Black Swan]

I believe that the only thing that determines artistic value is the community into which the art is entered, and that's it. If you put a show together and sell nothing then your work is worthless to the art community. The problem is that so many "ARTISTS" that do this will turn around and demand a grant from the govt. Why? It's obvious the value of your work was seen as less than stellar, what makes you think you deserve funding?

If one wants to create art then it is upon his/her head to do something that connects, not the taxpayers.

Well, that is debatable. Poverty killed Van Gogh, Modigliani, Vermeer, Bethoven, just to name a few particles of stardust.
Then ,once they are dead, the world realizes that their talent was ignored
because their style was not fashionable.
Although I agree that money should not be thrown to the same bunch of grant catchers year after year, but to say that artists do not deserve support is somewhat fascist.

 

[bospress.net]

If I was VERY wealthy, I'd open up an artists commune. Maybe buy an abandoned factory (one with hundreds of rooms) and let artists live there and work there free to support their art.

Bill

 

[Black Swan]

Thanks Bill,
I offer to cook and take out the trash:)

 

[mjp]

I love art. Moreso than most people.

How much did you spend on original art last year? Because if you "love it" without buying it, you kind of disprove your next statement.

I believe that the only thing that determines artistic value is the community into which the art is entered, and that's it. If you put a show together and sell nothing then your work is worthless to the art community.

As Black Swan points out, the market does not always value great art. Most - not all, but the vast majority of - people with significant amounts of money to spend on art make their purchases based on what a trusted gallerist or advisor tells them to buy. That's just the way it is. Everywhere.

Like in any other business, much of "success" in the art world hinges on who you know, networking, glad-handing, and kissing up to truly repulsive assholes. That, or just relentlessly making good art for 20 years or so until the fuckers can't ignore you anymore (don't try that with your rock bands, kids, it doesn't work the same way).

The rest of the people milling about the gallery, guzzling the cheap wine, don't have any money to spend on art. They will go from gallery to gallery during openings, and laugh and gossip and sometimes even look at the art, but they don't buy shit. A lot of those people are artists themselves, and they buy less art than any other group.

That is the art community you are referring to. At least in Los Angeles, which is one of the largest art markets in the world. If that group of knuckleheads is the barometer of value, then you get the kind of art that community deserves. And that ain't necessarily good, let alone great.

--

My problems with government funding of the arts are, first, they provide a pitiful, embarrassingly small amount of dough, second, the small amount that is available tends to flow to those who approach art via academia (see Bukowski's rant in this thread on grants and prizes).

We judge ancient civilizations in a large part based on their art, yet as a country we do not support the creation of art. So how should we be judged? By how many wars we win? By our awesome sports teams?

Most people who oppose government funding of the arts don't even realize that the largest art "prizes" come from private institutions, not the government. The government pisses away billions of dollars every day, and much of it goes into the pockets of the already wealthy. That should make you mad. Not the handful of pennies we throw at art.

 

[Father Luke]

laughing out loud!

$220.00 dollars???

let's make one for Father Luke for the laptop thread. all proceeds to to the cause.

Haven't gotten to that thread just yet.

Father Luke black hat. make a statement without saying anything.

only $320.00
cotton polyester blend

here:

don't go to your next poetry slam without it.

- -
Okay,
Father Luke

 

[falcune]

i just want to live on Bill's art farm.

 

[plasteredpoet]

Most recently, within the last 3 months, I commissioned a piece of artwork for 2000.00 from Canadian artist Dave Sim.

Does that count?

Don't get me wrong. I believe fully in supporting the arts. I'm uncomfortable with governments doing it, especially when, as you say, the majority of prizes are awarded by the private sector.

I understand that art is a very personal thing and that different people connect with different things. But fesces slathered onto a statue of the virgin Mary to me isn't art. Oh, its a statement, definitely, but what talent does that really require? I'm not a prude and this isn't about religion it's more about rationalizing an act of vandalism into art. I don't buy into it.

Say what you want about Warhol and his groundbreaking style, whatever. I think that one of the most devestating movements in the artworld was when Warhol started the whole "Is it art?" movement. If you have to ask then most likely, in my humble opinion, it is not.

And if Warhol was agenius then what're you, M?

Most of what I 've seen you do trumps 90 percent of his drugged out noodling around.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

But fesces slathered onto a statue of the virgin Mary to me isn't art. Oh, its a statement, definitely, but what talent does that really require?

Right there is the key to this: What is art? To me, to you, to everyone else. While many of our definitions may be similar, there will be a multitude of definitions. A good friend of mine from years back once said the "Art is criticism." To meet that definition of art, one needn't necessarily have what is considered to be classical artistic talent, but rather, having a proclivity toward making a bold statement in what may be a socially-unacceptable way may be sufficient to meet that definition.

So, it's subjective. It's OK for you not to want government funding to go to what you consider to be non-art, but someone out there probably gets more enjoyment from a glass of piss with a crucifix in it than looking at a Picasso or a Miro. But I don't think it's right to remove funding for the arts just because it doesn't meet your definition or anyone else's. That's the thing; it's art to some and not to others.

 

[mjp]

Most recently, within the last 3 months, I commissioned a piece of artwork for 2000.00 from Canadian artist Dave Sim.

Well, that's a perfect example of the "what is art?" question, because to many people what Dave Sim, Los Bros Hernandez, Shag or Shepard Fairey do is illustration, not fine art. Others consider them to be artists, without making any distinction between fine, plastic, pop, illustration or any other definition.

Who's right?

What's the difference between an oil painting of a tree, a comic book page and a crucifix in a jar of piss? It's hard to defend one as being "legitimate" art and not the others. You can't even use talent as a standard, because creating a public spectacle to make a point takes a certain kind of talent. What Karen Finley did and does takes talent. This guy is one of the most famous artists in the world, but all he does is design shit on a computer and have it manufactured. That is a talent, design, but is it art?

It's all the art of our culture, and if we value some of it, we have to give the rest of it the the right to coexist with what we value. I just sent a check for almost five grand to the IRS a few weeks ago. I would rather the government give all of that to an artist whose work I absolutely hate rather than to Haliburton or Black Water or any of the other 100,000 U.S. government contractors in Iraq. But some of it will wind up in their pockets no matter what I want.

So since they are handing out my money, hand some out to artists. And musicians.

And poets, for fuck's sake! Yeah, poets...

 

[jordan]

tristan tzara asked "what is art" (and offered up quite a few things that he designated as art that many people thought were not) quite a long time before warhol came around...

the idea that art is self-evident and that warhol was a negative presence for introducing this question of "well, is it art?" is self-defeating. to wit: most artists who introduce unconventional "things" (cambell's soup cans, urinals, etc.) do so to undermine rigid standards about what art is and what it is not. they are specifically reacting to the idea that something is art because it meets a set of agreed-upon criteria. their whole point is that art has a fluid and subjective definition, and that something outside the establishment's criteria can be art as well. so, when you say that art is self evident, you're essentially saying that art is totally subjective, which is what the dadaists, the surrealists, the pop artists, and the outsider artists are saying as well. the question of whether or not something is art has always and will always exist; it's the answer that changes. and if your answer is that you know it when you see it (i thought that was pornography, anyway), then potentially anything is art... you sir, are worse than warhol!

regarding government funding, unless you subscribe to libertarian principles (and you very well might), you have to take the good with the bad. if you support the government getting involved in social life (funding schools, community groups, etc.), then there are inevitably going to be aspects of that funding that you don't support (be it art endowments or assistance to municipalities to repave their commercial districts). i wish i could pick and choose what the government paid for, but i am not a libertarian whatsoever, and so i accept that, of all the things they fund that contravene libertarian principles, i'm not going to be in love with all of them.

 

[hank solo]

CMB: You know, I'm no art critic, but I know what I hate.

 

[xxedgexx]

i wonder what Bukowski would have thought of emo. laughing!!!

Buk would have told 'em to fuck off...unless one of them said they liked his poetry.

What pisses me off about the whole emo thing is that people think it's new. The emo thing has been going on since the early 90's and it broke off from the hardcore scene. We used to make fun of emo bands all the time.

 

[jordan]

i picked up a sidekick kato cd from 1993 a few years ago in chicago... it sounds exactly like all those really long-name bands today (you know the type: "stars buzzing through timespace" or "the day most trusted to be a nightingale" or whathaveyou). and weren't the smiths emo before that?

 

[xxedgexx]

I believe the proper term during the era of The Smiths was "art fag". Same thing, different name, different decade. Like today I see little difference between hipster and emo. I believe you can be a hipster without being emo, but you can be emo without being a hipster.

There was a label or band, I forget which, called Hot Water Music, which of course I realize now (not then) came from Buk. I believe that band or label was all emo.

There's also a great "band" if you want to call it that, since all the music is electronically produced, called Agoraphobic Nosebleed that uses some Buk in their music. It's a grindcore band with real instrument samples that are then organized electronically, so it sounds like your typical grind core but with completely impossible drum beats.

What was this thread about? Where am I? What are we doing out in the middle of the dessert?

 

[jordan]

hot water music... their old stuff is really good (they're a band). as they grew, it was like they were trying harder and harder to be samiam, and they finally split up into an emo band (the draft; ugh) and an acoustic emo band (chuck ragan; double ugh), but their first three albums are fantastic. they're no harvey milk, though.

 

[plasteredpoet]

Been out of the loop

In the "Dirty South" for a tradshow. SGIA and all that.

So this may seem off topic now but whatever. I don't place labels on what I think of as art. I suppose my opinion is a very solipsistic one, I suppose all individual definitions of art are solipsistic come to think of it. Essentially I look at it in the sense that if it requires talent or an ability that is not easily obtainable or readily available to all of us as humans than whatever the product of said talent is is art.

Making a public spectacle is an ability that we all share. I will not ever define that as anything but silliness and absurdity.

But, as I said, art is a very intimate and individual thing. If you connect with the jar of piss, so be it. That's all well and good, I just know I wouldn't put it on display in my home.

This may be off topic a bit but I wonder if anyone has seen a short film entitled (I think) "Bullet in the Brain" (or maybe "brain pan")?

It's about a creative writing teacher who gets killed during an armed robbery.

But in a great scene he shows his class a painting of a landscape. It isn't really breathtaking, basically looks like your average landscape done by any competent artist. He asks if anyone is familiar with the artist and recieves blank stares.

Then he holds up a Picasso and asks if anyone is familiar with this artist and of course thay all are.

He says that they were both painted by Picasso. The landscape was an early piece of his and he says something along the lines of "Before you can convince us that Cubism is a great idea you have to show us that you have the ability to tell it like it is"

I always liked that.

 

[Father Luke]

Here ya go. . .

[dead video]

 

[informal]

*masturbates in public and calls it art*

 

[vodka]

But, as I said, art is a very intimate and individual thing. If you connect with the jar of piss, so be it. That's all well and good, I just know I wouldn't put it on display in my home.

very well said.

"Before you can convince us that Cubism is a great idea you have to show us that you have the ability to tell it like it is"

that is excellent too and the very reason i always tell people if you don't have any idea what the rules of poetry are how can you know you're breaking them.

you know what would be interesting is to ask a group of these slam poets who their influences are.

 

[Father Luke]

"Before you can convince us that Cubism is
a great idea you have to show us that you have the
ability to tell it like it is"

that is excellent too and the very reason i always tell people if you don't have any idea what the rules of poetry are how can you know you're breaking them.

I think it is more about transcendence, rather than an outright rebellion. Study leads to understanding, leads to creativity. It is a type of wisdom.

Look at me. Like I know what I am talking about.

you know what would be interesting is to ask a group of these slam poets who their influences are.

Can you do that and get back to us?
kkthxbye.