’Wa-Sabi, What’s The Beat?

These things are Problems as these things only really justify and promote not Progress (as the cover of that issue of Free Press erroneously promises) but a Wax-On Wax-Off Maintenance of the Status Quo (at its very least), the Retardation of Literature (at its worst), an invocation of Artistic Self-Importance (at its most moderate) as even as this sort of attitude seems to promote Art as “Art,” it only really promotes and benefits the Self and nothing else.

The Wabi-Sabi analogy is largely flawed, as it denotes both a deliberate (or calculated, the wabi) and a natural (or time-elapsed, the sabi) abandon of Art to Imperfection to achieve an artfully-pleasing aesthetic best described as Flawed Perfection, which, when applied to Writing (as the essay does) implies that what can be read as Bad Work can be read as a deliberate (or calculated) decision on the part of the Author, or, as in the case of Old Work that is later found to be Bad, can be read as a natural (or time-elapsed) effect on the work, and both “imperfections” can be argued via Wabi-Sabi/’Wa-Sabi Poetics as legit approaches to achieve the artfully-pleasing aesthetic of Flawed Perfection. The analogy largely ignores the fact that the Wabi-Sabi potmakers go through a journeyman process of perfecting their Craft as they deliberately add imperfections on their work. They don't use Wabi-Sabi to justify their flaws. Wabi-Sabi is their deliberate attempt to Strive towards Perfection. Wabi-Sabi as a stringent aesthetic in itself.

Wabi-Sabi’s mutation into ’Wa-Sabi is also flawed as it roughly translates to “nothing to say” which really opens itself up to a lot of easy ridicule, not to mention its general vibe of Agree-to-Disagree really is quite the conversation stopper, only inviting people to either say nothing or say nothing of consequence, thus a very effective tool to Maintain the Status Quo, and ’Wa-Sabi's sudden synonymisation to “the ineffable” and “the unsayable” and its justification as such-and-such come across as unnecessary as it’s really just elaborately debating a fact that everyone already inherently knows.

And both points are really neither here nor there when applied to discussions on the Progress of Literature, as both points are testaments to the resistance of the very idea of Progress, ie, justifying Bad Work, debating a fact. But maybe Lacuesta was only really talking about his own output? I’m a bit cautious about this possibility as having read his first book Life Before X and other stories (UP Press, 2000), Wabi-Sabi/’Wa-Sabi Poetics doesn’t really necessarily apply to Lacuesta’s writing as Life Before X is about as close to perfect as one can get in the Brilliantes-Polotan School of Writing which is really about as close to God’s Own Writing (AKA the New Yorker School of Writing by way of Salinger and Lethem) if ever He decides to write another more contemporary book as one can get and doesn’t really need any of the haphazard justification that Wabi-Sabi/’Wa-Sabi Poetics provides, although White Elephants (Anvil, 2005), Lacuesta’s more recent collection, leaves a lot to be desired, so maybe Wabi-Sabi/’Wa-Sabi Poetics is a justification of that? Or maybe Wabi-Sabi/’Wa-Sabi Poetics is a justification of itself?

I ask as so far Wabi-Sabi/’Wa-Sabi Poetics is only really justifying a process that opens the barn doors for an artfully-aesthetic consideration of Bad Writing, and that for me is really unacceptable as in this Age of Easy-Blogging and Facebook Graffitiing—all already ’Wa-Sabi—the Writer’s Moral Obligation to be Intelligent—to say Something of Consequence—is about as important as it can be, really more important than it has been in our hundred years of modern writing, that I’d rather we all err on the side of Striving for Perfection than Waxing Poetic on Shoddy Workmanship.