In his own lifetime Lorca's first glimmerings of fame almost immediately gave rise to Lorquismo. He would warn actors he was directing in his own plays not to perform Lorquismo. His work casts a shadow like that of any other canonical writer: think of Kafka and the Kafkaesque. Lorquismo is a kind of a kind of Andalusian kitsch, or we could say, a repertory of clichés associated with the poet.
Canonical writers have whole critical industries devoted to them: archives, libraries, journals; articles and books. They are also the subject of imitation, parody, homage, adaptation, musical setting, and translation. The reception of the canonical writer, then, will be both academic and popular.
Calling something a cliché seems to be negative designation, but it is impossible to have a critical industry or a popular reception without having commonplace ideas that are repeated ad nauseam. A commonplace is not even a bad thing, per se. It is just something that occurs with some statistical frequency.
Usually, a cliché is a cliché for a reason; it has some genuine basis in the writer's work.
We should expose clichés, recognize them for what they are, and see how they arose. I will give three examples here.
1) Lorca as childlike creator. He is a kind of man-child, innocent and driven by primeval instincts. An inspired poet rather than a fully conscious one.
2) Andalusian Kitsch. He represents the idea of romantic Spain, as defined in romanticism itself and in the work of Hemingway. Flamenco music, bullfighting. The duende. Olive trees and orange blossoms.
3) Poet of frustrated desire. There is just one theme in work: desire. All of his works are saying the same thing.
I could go on. He is the voice of the people, the exemplary victim of fascist violence, poet of tragic vision...
I won't bother to refute the commonplaces, not because I accept them, but because I think identifying them in this way already invites a certain amount of skepticism. Lorca scholars tend to be more nuanced: no serious specialist actually subscribes to any of these clichés. (Except when they do.)
In a way, too, the fact that there are many clichés is good thing, because that creates a less unitary vision of his work. If there were just one, it would be even worse. In a way, you can't have Kafka without the Kafkaesque: that is what makes Kafka resonate, even it sounds somewhat cliché to insist on that aspect of his work. Can you have Lorca without Lorquismo? Probably not.
