Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Role of The Artist
(Human versus Hybrid)

Kofi Fosu Forson

What is the role of the artist? It is destined. Some people struggle with the role of human and that of the hybridnous life of an artist.

Much is the struggle to be human and hybrid. An artist doesn’t become. He is. There is a transformation, however. Where, when and how does one differentiate between the human and the artist?

The physical being is a mass, temporal and spatial. One’s history is a collection of events that define his destiny in a physical space. Given the realm of the ever growing global market, we are not bound by a literal space and time. Time is ever evolving. Transactions are made by individuals and companies continents apart.

Is his upbringing as an artist rooted in genetics, academia, self-taught or a decision made at the spur of the moment? An artist’s decision to practice art is destined. It is almost fateful. The individual is drawn to it. It is immediate. There are levels of involvement, the child prodigy, the very talented, the curious or any number of young artists who were drawn to the craft at an early age.

Otherwise, there are those who make a professional choice based on intellect, employment or an overlooked desire to be involved in the arts.

What is destined and what is prefabricated?

How does the artist gain experience? Is it purely through practice or does the intellectual gain an upper-hand through his philosophy? Is the psychology of the artist pertinent to him grounding himself?

The artist is quantitatively subject to excelling in his chosen field(s). He must know his craft. The history of those who have come before him defines his hybridity.

The hybridity of the artist formulates a language that he speaks and intellectualizes. This is based on a political, socio-political, literary, religious and sexual platform. It isn’t advantageous to call one’s self an artist. One must be the art he practices. If not, he is nothing more than an employable person.

The role of the artist is to communicate. It’s an exclusive language. When articulated, only a specific group is inclined to respond. The subjectivity found in art is the reason why. The difference between human and hybrid is as common as spectator and performer. The performer subjects himself to a regimen. It dictates who he is and what he does. The more he challenges himself, the more he is qualified to play the role within which he hopes to excel.

It is up to the artist to question his art and how he intends on defining and portraying it. The importance of his critics and spectators will either be valued or debased. Whereas every artist is human, the artist must understand that his role is exclusive. In this exclusivity, he has a great opportunity to communicate ideas which otherwise will be left unarticulated, exploited, removed from the conscience of society.

The artist is human. The greater quest qualifies him as a figure, animal, spirit, hybrid.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Pimp versus Preacher
(The ever elusive Role of The Word Provider)
Kofi Fosu Forson

The word "concoct" turns me on. It's always been a rule to think before we speak. Sometimes it's plainly natural to react with a grunt, a wink, a howl, a whistle. Such is the game among the sexes. The French have a male and female equivalent for each word. Is the word "suck" masculine or feminine?

How does a painter get a buyer to purchase a piece of art? It's different with each artist. The one rule is that the artist must be familiar with all the differing levels of communicating, fashion, intellectual discipline (lack there of) level of attitude (pretension versus poise) plus the all too important role of seduction. The artist must seduce or allow him/herself to be seduced.

There's a reason for the availability of wine at most gallery openings. The vision of the artist creates the assemblage of people. The eye commits itself to the works on view. The eye must also commit itself to the variety of people gathered. What speaks? What responds? What seduces? As in every group, there's a balance, an association depending on body language, social types or the bare necessity of mutual respect and acknowledgement.

Who is the seducer? How does he/she seduce? Can he/she be seduced? A man or woman of accomplishment is greedy. He or she wants more. He or she must feed or else be fed upon. To be fed upon in this construct is accepted. It is not defeatist. Sexuality is breath. Seduction requires air. Therefore to seduce is natural. It's a game for some. The pornographic power to titillate, conquer, abuse, kill.

What is the language of sex? Does it exist? Is it a pretext for fornicating? Can the language of sex exist outside the realm of flirtation? How does one read between the lines in a pornographic setting? Could it be accepted as a part of social discourse? If so, is it effective? …And then, how? The seducer knows only him/herself and the disciplines that has shaped him/her.

The strength among nations is governed by its leader. Do we govern to lead or rather to rule and conquer? It's much the fodder depending on what continent you survey. Seduction could be interpreted as the reason for every sexual conquest.

What precedes sex? Foreplay or is it Pre-foreplay? We are a consuming society. Sex is a main ingredient in that consumption. Sex is hunger. But does the orgasm qualify the completion and satisfaction of that hunger?

If so, is it based on the sexual drive? Must it be met purely and insatiably as an erection and lubrication? Does the power to penetrate with an erect penis govern her clitoris? Does her role to receive that erect penis in her mouth, in her vagina make her conquerable? Or is it purely human behavior? Isn't there a language? If not, should there be a language? Does the need to commit our sexual drive to a sex act require a revision? One must wonder…how else can one satisfy that sexual drive in circumstances other than sex?

It is of my belief that the origin of the pimp goes back in time to the cave dwellers. We have to exact the reality of sex for money and how it is all organized. Publishers of adult magazines like Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler are relevant forms of pimps. The word "Pimp" is negative. But the language is still the same. Seduce to fulfill. Seduce to get a thrill.

Fame is dastardly the cause. "The world is coming to an end, love, live to fornicate, get rich or famous before you die." Seduction then has the power of a digital camera, a promise, race, reputation; nationality...Where is the ever elusive word provider?

Politicians inspire. Their cause is articulated with words. Preachers inspire. There is a meaning, dedication and hopeful truth in what they say. There is very little meaning to the spoken word at this point and time. Not much is being said. We are too busy listening. When we aren't, we are too busy talking. We are victimized by silence. It crumbles us. It reminds us of terrorism. It reminds us of the economy. It reminds us of ourselves.

Think of the word "abracadabra." Doesn't it make you smile?
It does me.

Objectifying Beauty
Kofi Fosu Forson

Some men objectify women. I have been guilty of this.

Neither vice nor conquest, in my life, women have been cause for an undertaking, grounds for a mission, a dance, celebration, mystery, sin and a lesson.

I realize now that I must exorcise the spirituality of women from my life. They are to be explored, interpreted, furthermore, intellectualized within the realms of love and beauty.

For me, given my psyche, conscience and reality (?), to have sex with a porn star (or a woman unfeeling sexually, highly liberated, practices sex as a religion, as a vice,) there would be no point of return. This is not meant to relay any point of ecstasy.

The dark side of every personality is a culmination of fears, desires and pangs. They usually combine to define our past history and psychology. We create an illusive screen which enables us to defend ourselves from other personalities and circumstances. This screen is made up of cynical thoughts, hate, anger, violence, sexual, emotional and physical. In a plural conscience, these feelings are marginalized.

To be chaste is the drive. In a world of material wealth, the flesh is at first textural. Mortality renders it dead. The drive to fornicate is part of the existence and conscience. In a plural conscience, it isn’t acted upon. It is truncated. The permissible result is the objectifying of beauty and love: that the being is sex. The being is love. The being is beautiful.

Artists objectify beauty. If seemingly, the woman is a work of art, artists are damaged by their beauty. For some artists, the woman is a vice. For others, she is a creature of love and beauty. In the world of art, she could be The Madonna or The Mona Lisa. In a hedonistic world, women are the constant source of temptation. The artist must then choose between living what must be deemed “normal” ritual of dating or spontaneously interacting with women.

The artist in question is just as damaged as the victim of rape. Sex is not an issue on both sides. The artist may have been molested spiritually, psychologically and intellectually by society. Thus is the language of pornography. The pluralism found in a pornographic film is as disturbing as the physical rape.

The final decision is then again to exorcise the spirituality of women from the life. They are not to be interpreted as sex objects. It is natural. But in the plural conscience, they are objectified in a clear and transparent way. There is no need for cynicism. The illusive screen will protect. It will be indeed cynical. The decision will then be to cleverly know what to say and what to keep hidden in the blinding beauty that makes up the psyche.

The artist has the greatest challenge. He is at once dark, and then he is caught up in the light. What he chooses to portray will define him. His intellectual thoughts on love and beauty will permeate his roles with women. It would be more than just dating and “conquering.” It would be a greater test.

The chance to live in a chaste and modern world!

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Art School Girl of The Day

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

(La maladie femme)

Kofi Fosu Forson

Georgia O’Keefe is the most beautiful woman that ever lived. I see her in Dawn Cherie. I never met Georgia O’Keefe. I know her from the photographs Stieglitz took…That and her paintings. Is Georgia O’Keefe a fantasy or supposed reality? If Dawn Cherie is my Georgia O’Keefe, is this then hyperrealism? Would that then lead me to say Dawn Cherie as Georgia O’Keefe is the most beautiful woman that ever lived?

Who is Dawn Cherie? Have you not known love? That beauty besets the eyes is merely a notion. Would you mate at a time of disease? Does that not define her wholesomely, if not handsomely with a cancerous or East Village-chique-bald head?

I have heard of Georgia O’Keefe as the most beautiful woman that ever lived. But I believe Dawn Cherie is better at being Georgia O’Keefe than the former artist and model herself.

Much like I do martinis, I breathe women. Speculate the femme as a disease, who dares come close. Whether it’s the lipstick temperature, taste of urine in the pubis, bits of blue paper within the vaginal hair, unshaven armpits or legs, should a man cancel any former or future plans with the woman in question? How then does he rise to the occasion at the time of disease?

Love is not a piece of paper. It’s a painting by Francis Bacon. Resist the temptation to fantasize. It’s nothing without reality. In reality we are compulsively in an attempt to mirror. The reflection isn’t always to our advantage. But in truth the trivial joy is found in the image, as in the literal mirror. Where reality meets fantasy is that need to mirror. The pleasure can be found not only in reality. Reality and fantasy can be lived in a totally different realm.

The mind is a tool, at times, it’s a toy. Is it possible for sexual pleasure to take place between two people centuries apart? Forgive the mild euphoria…boroughs apart. Fair to say that sexual pleasure is manifested purely by the manipulation of the organs… What then is sensation? Feeding off the memory of an old lover would somehow lead to a sensation. Why can’t it end there? Should it? Must coitus be always definitive of pleasure?

From women featured in Pre-Raphaelite art to those in Man Ray’s photography, the artist has always had the upper-hand in how he manipulated his muse. She was a figure under his guidance. Therefore, he mastered the plan which was to make art. The muse is a body afloat, as if by magic. The model is significantly a body, much like the mannequin. In the modern day, it is futile, not by circumstance but the equation drawn to the history of sex, rock’n roll and pornography.

Artists and politicians…men in general are threatened by the female body. Instead of introducing a new language between the sexes, men find it appropriate to indulge in a game of sadism and power play. The relationship between the artist and the muse is not the same. With a contract, it’s business as usual. Given the in-betweens, anything goes, especially if money is offered.

Fantasy and reality rule the discipline by which the artist and muse manifest as forces in the game of art. Demoiselles d’Avignon is to be understood as an example of what will always be a marking of an artist capturing his muse(s) not in reality but as reality begetting fantasy as reality. I haven’t seen an actual image of the women who represent "Demoiselle..." but in truth they live on in that very painting by Picasso.

Hyperreality. Is it even decoded in the mind of the modern artist? What is the impetus that causes the all too real fascination with art? Art is dangerous. If not, then it’s the affectation which many artists apply to the process. The process, definitive of what…?

Unbeknownst to the general public, the artist is governed by a neurosis, whether intellectual or psychological. It is “the process” that allows the artist to express and define for him/herself what is determinable given the neurosis and how it subjects itself within the ramifications of art.

How the artist manages to conceive of an idea and implement it within the social discourse of what is and what is not art is an illusion. This is carefully articulated in many studios around the world.

What we are as artists to ourselves is a magical equation and conclusion drawn from the sub-realities stationed in our conscience. Neurotically, we favor the light to dark, dark to light sequence, through which we create, somehow accepting that love as a disease permeates all that is art.

Our destiny is not found in the far-too-often pompous world of gallery openings. It is necessary in the creating of art. This process governs us as children of a higher and holier conscience.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Les Femmes sont les fruits d’amour
Kofi Fosu Forson

Eve was the first. If we should ever forget, she was tempted. What is love without contempt?

There is no regard for passivity in the game of love. As crucial as it is to receive, one must dictate a card of trial and error. It is often words which bring most lovers to a melting point.

Love is universal. But immediately, it is chemical. This borders a lineage to what surpasses the interim period between one lover and the next. The histories of each individual is part of a world lived before. A world in which ones past is more dominant than the present and perhaps the unknown future. And yet, it’s in the existence, the present day existence. We are all lives once lived. Furthermore, we bear uncanny resemblances to people walking the very earth. Why then manifest? If in a populated pool we are all destined…why should we manage an undertaking of the very self?

Respect is earned. It is not a demand. The very essences that reflect upon one’s soul can be felt even when among strangers. An individual who has conscientiously manifested and is in keeping with the balance of love, nurture and faith, carries with him/her an authority that is never spoken. It is felt. This action is a manifestation of self love. It is also the aforementioned lineage which surpasses psychological, physiological and psycho-sexual resemblances.

The echo of a man… It is about immediate satisfaction. This can be found in the psycho-sexual self.

“Les femmes sont les fruits d’amour.”

What is truly behind the love a man has for a woman? If men are beasts, so are women…creatures, as a matter of fact. The gamesmanship among the sexes is homogenous. Social traits allow for the man to be a gentleman or a brute. The woman can choose to be passive or aggressive. All these traits are generalizations made official through unwritten rules governed by society’s Vanity Fair.

“Les femmes sont les fruits d’amour.”

What is this curse “love?” How is it unbroken? Many facets make up the creature that is human. Love is dominant. It presents itself as familial and sexual. The upsurge is the relevance to one’s existence which can be found in pornography, art or religion. Pornography hardens the conscience, bringing love and sexuality to a common denominator. Art empowers the existence to a more sensitive yet aggressive level. It is a dichotomy which the artist struggles with for the better part. Religion enables some to seek love in a holier being.

“Les femmes sont les fruits d’amour.”

Women are the fruits of love. Compelled as most women are to find fulfillment in love, they place themselves comfortably or not in the conscience of most men. It is not a blessing. More so, it is a mission. Most men are driven by the innermost need to fornicate.

The woman is a nurturing being. Men lose themselves within this comfort zone. If the “vulva” is the target, then the Dolce Gabana is a precursor. The “feminine” is then an assumption amongst men as they try to find different ways to complete the action. This in psychology is the “mirroring” of the female.

“Les femmes sont les fruits d’amour.”

Love is a fruit. Eve was tempted. The female is love. In the game of love, there is no masculine or feminine. It’s conscientious, both personal and emotional. We give of ourselves in hope of an understanding. The outcome is relived in the life thereafter.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Gender and Morality's Pig
Kofi Fosu Forson

A Cindy Sherman photograph was the most beautiful thing. Paris Hilton is a threat.

How do you stand? Like the models in Men's Health magazine? Can you walk backward to the days of long-haired male models? And I don't mean Fabio.

Who remembers Rosie Vela? Zazu, anyone? Time has had its share of the bombshell, the bad mama jamma, the Bond girls, the sexy geek or any number of women who fulfilled a man's fantasy.

Sex is a language and more than just a physical act. It has been determined in advertising, Hollywood, the music industry, communication between two people online and those who choose to meet in public. As a language what do we communicate? The obvious are means of titillation, a particular dress, skin or what to some “is beauty.” But we never give thought to the "word." There's very little verbal language in pornography. How then does one promote sex as a language?

Consider "talking dirty," is it the use of profanity or is it the intent and how it's intended? Sex as a combination of reality and fantasy makes for an existence. This goes beyond fornicating. It's more so about sexual libido, performance, where, when and how or if at all. Penetration and the orgasm are mostly the language spoken in this circumstance. Those who are fortunate enough manifest not only as lovers but as artists, using the foundation of sex to communicate with an even greater community.

We're certainly not pigs at birth. Those who are of the common and frank opinion find themselves playing host to a lot of headaches and heartbreaks.

There comes a time when one has no choice but to listen to singularly the most beautiful song ever recorded.

Monday, January 01, 2007

Fleurs du Futur
Kofi Fosu Forson

Women are flowers of the future.

Why a flower? Georgia O'Keefe is best remembered for her flowers. We all know why. The eroticized female is the one who expresses femininity. The vulva is metaphorically viewed as a flower. In her nudity, a woman is pleasing to the eyes of the man. But she is also defiant of the man’s advances as in Steiglitz’s nude photographs of O’Keefe.

Language of sex is feminine. Either partner has to yield. In a manner of seduction, masculine persona could be viewed as rape if described in how the male approaches the woman. If the woman were to do the same, it would be interpreted as a means of overpowering the male.

The male libido is commonly used to impregnate women. Without sex, men would be left to war, fight, fist, kill or impose suicide. Much is the game of politics where men in office make decisions that rule the world.

How can we not embrace the O'Keefian flower. The power of birth. The beauty of sex. The beauty of the female.

What is evident in women as flowers of the future is how they present their libido. Purely, it is meant for the preservation of family and home, with respect to what it takes to keep it grounded. This is evident in the roles women acquire in society, from the house maid to the politician. The woman is liberated. Free enough to suggest her sexual partner(s) or to ponder a future role as president. Granted as men and women we are plagued by lust. Once lust is under control, we are driven towards a curbed illicit behavior. Libido and lust are two different things but as human creatures we tend to fuse them in gender relations both in political and sexual circumstances.

Dating as a social activity permeates the lives of both sexes. Men and women are left to discover the “how to” and “how not to” co-exist alongside the opposite sex. This very manifestation is part of the etiquette which applies to the dating game. Dating is a sport and not a clear cut form of evaluation or understanding of another person’s existence.

Lovemaking for the purpose of communicating ones emotions and feelings is essential. Women are in accordance to teach this very lesson. Otherwise, men will continue to pursue women as members of the opposite sex who they solely penetrate for an orgasm.

Women are flowers of the future. Sex is an intellectual language. It is up to women to set a new trend.