>
I mean there is no art there. There is art, there is angst, in OG punk songs, and the music helps. There is no art in Bukowski's poems.To quote art critic J. Lebowski, that is, like, your opinion, man.
Both laymen and a number of literature figures and literary critics have appraised Bukowski's work.
So there's that, it's not like it's some guilty pleasure or something only undiscerning crude fans appreciate...
>At least punk songs have some kind of emotional resonance, or at the very least a good hook, you know?
There's all kinds of emotional resonance in Bukowski's work. And I'm not great fan of him either, in fact don't even have a single book (while I have of tons of others poets of the era).
Just a random pick:
the flesh covers the bone
and they put a mind
in there and
sometimes a soul,
and the women break
vases against the walls
and the men drink too
much
and nobody finds the one
but keep
looking
crawling in and out
of beds.
flesh covers
the bone and the
flesh searches
for more than
flesh
>
I guess what I'm saying is that every Bukowski poem I've read reads like one I wrote in seventh grade.Then you either overestimate your sevent grade poems, or you wrote great poems in sevent grade and should have done something with them...
But, I think the more plausible idea, is that you have a different sensibility and find them beneath you, but more from a moral and/or formulaic judgement and a prejudice about how a proper poem should be...
To make an easy analogy, that could be the same way a "rawk" fan can't understand electronic music, and thinks it's all rubbish, even it's Aphex Twin and not Skrillex.
