PATHOLOGY of The Artist Mind

Ego, Libido and LUST

Kofi Fosu forson

The artist in existence first recognizes himself as he makes use of language as a written text, given its signifiers and how they are manipulated. This in a sense showcases a sense of philosophy and articulation of language not only in art but as a device with which the artist presents himself socially and in public.

Somehow the artist is not merely an artist but a human person who feels and emotes love. The balance between the human as a sympathetic and empathetic person along with his role as an artist, some one who thinks and acts on his thoughts pathologically but foremost the instinct with which to create art.

The artist ego is prominent only in that he is sensitive to nature and it allows him to perceive things which are in a sense sources of inspiration. Once removed from this particular ego he is forced to hide within the notion that he has talent. At times it is enough. But in a world of competition outside the society of artists one has to deal with money, love and sex.

The ego with which the artist exists within the world of other artists isn't proportioned to survive the human life. He must then manifest an ego which is superficial. This can be found in hip hop artists who tend to boast. Once the ego is presented and actualized the artist is able to compete in society not only as an artist but as a person equal in stature if not superior to those who are less of talent.

The libido of the artist in the modern sense is seen as functional in ordinary terms. That the artist is made employable by his art and seeks love and romance like most people. Much of this can also carry over to the neurosis of artists like Van Gogh and Ego Schiele. This perception of the libido is an acute one. It is heightened by the thought of the vulva and how sexual desire is derived from the vulva as made symbolic in art and sex.

Meaning to function as lover one seeks a partner. The discourse then leads to a sexual encounter. But in Van Gogh's case it is more or less a matter of psychology and neurosis. The dialouge becomes less gender related as it takes on matters of madness and sexuality. Schiele on the other hand was prone to seducing young women. His libidinal energy was transferred into his art. That the seduction between him and these women were an act only that it met his need as an artist.

On the subject of art and sex I find myself now having rebounded from the very neurosis of Schiele in particular. Years of chastity has helped me address my dual roles of lover and artist. Whereas it seems probable that the intensity with which an artist loves can be combined with the work he does as an artist, made me think otherwise of how I seduced my muses and how at once we still managed to make art. I found it necessary to separate the two.

The role of the artist and muse within a discourse of art has changed now that the art muse is a sex muse. I found in the detail that it was best to court a muse separate from the art. After many difficult attempts to work with the muse free of sexual contact I have succeeded some what. As I am now in meeting with a woman less a muse and more an intellectual equal.

During a photo session when she approached me unusually close I felt a sexual sensation wanting to touch her and grope her. This was immediate and within the moment but it passed. For me this was more than just a libidinal moment but something more relevant to the language between both artists and how in mutual respect I didn't act on my feelings.

After years of practicing chastity I see now that I feel. I am still sexual. If only more articulate with respect to my partner.

Over all I have cleansed my self of the neurosis as I am able to view women with respect and not as sexual objects. My situation then is removed from the nature of most men as mine becomes more situated in my neurosis, role as artist and that of lover.