Friday, July 10, 2009

Flesh for Lulu
Modern Interpretations of Skin

Kofi Fosu Forson

By design a stranger in passing registers as human body, part flesh, otherwise clothed, signifying ones gender, subculture and association. Given each person’s idiosyncrasy much can be said about what in particular resonates as beauty, a body part or genuine aura. Nonetheless it is a physical attraction void of intellect.

Animal magnetism, brilliance by definition, more than represents hetero or homo spontaneity, an exact and immediate interaction based on the intellectual and sexual ego. Modern society renders it more particularly, musculature or perfect body, a heightened reason with which we have become pronouncedly a sexual culture.

Somehow as a redirect, language still possesses musculature and substance. Many have chosen an alternative route where graphic display seems more formidable, therefore making the act of peeling away at skin more satisfying than intellectual qualification found in the common man.

Does the modern man qualify as animal and not as intellectual? Is it love and fear that best describes this predicament?

Porno is not pornography. The subtexts of art, music and fashion can be found in pornography. The word “porno” however derivative renders the pornographic material as caption. These become postmodernist human cartoons where bodies mount and interact not solely for pleasure but derision, abuse and euphoria.

Language therefore between the translatable acts of sex and the viewer supposedly promotes desire. It resonates when the viewer is susceptible. Otherwise a conditioned psyche finds the humor and disgust in it all.

That varied sense found in history as orgiastic hasn’t so much evolved as it has proved notion that the human animal is at first sexual. If prompted, gruesome display whether sexual or violent best defines ones disposition.

However conditioned and programmed to love, a false notion predetermines a so called “ordinary” and “normal” livelihood. On matters sexual we are at once befallen by fantasies expressed through moments in the day to day orchestrated when the body conditions itself.

This is when dialogues within the day are transported into visions of fancy at times pleasant or graphic, bordering innocence and experience. Such notions as fetish and type continuously excite the senses. Much can be said that the mind’s narrative best defines a true lover. Circumstantially the brain is by far the truest sex organ.

In an ostracized society we more so primarily find favor in what is subject as matter of fact. That an elongated erect penis is the key to sexual pleasure removes the counterbalance through which we find language within the barriers of love and sex.

If not love then is sex not more than just a dry-hump?

Speculating as one watches porno it’s often clear that the male subject with the elongated erect penis is merely thrusting and that the female partner is pretending.

What presumably is an act of sex results in the male partner dry-humping the female thinking she’s being pleasured when in actuality she’s doing her best to complete his ego.

Language depicted between the male and female gender is bound by love. Modern society has removed its relevance. What we become are essences signified by gender, race and subcultures.

All too real there are few notions that reflect a conscience that death and love equals sex and self-imprisonment borders rape, torture and murder. Life once a continuous cycle has been met with factors resembling a camp or prison whereby people associate themselves by color of skin, tattoos, colors as in fashion or plainly exorcising the nature of skin by fornicating.

The disillusionment of porno neither borders an envisioning of sexuality nor does it further progressivity of love. Unlike a Bacon masterpiece where religion, the masculine body, mania and torture erode in the absolute, porn remarks at an immediacy best explained as nonsense once again meaninglessness …a modern-day cartoon.

Image by Tracy Hunter

No comments: