INTRODUCTION
A woman, but above all an inspiring presence who endures in an artist’s mind; sometimes a model who leads the artist towards a body of work rich in new and distinct creativity; often, too, a friend whose “reign” gives the artist a reason to exist: that is the essence of the unique muse. More generally—and more simply—a muse is the source of a powerful stimulus that prompts anyone with a certain creative capacity to express the emotion this person awakens in them. This pleasant tension, this inclination to create, may extend over a brief or moderate period, or even last a lifetime. Regardless of gender.
THE NOTION OF THE ARTIST!... A NATURAL VALUE
There is no need to dwell on what enabled “Nature” to foresee, in its designs... the existence of beings endowed with a precise capacity for abstraction and a deep desire to give material form to its results. The artist exists. We know that some people are born gifted; the young Mozart is the clearest example.
We also know that “Nature” planned... for its survival... balance. In a nature thrown off balance, humanity would not exist.
THE MUSE... AN ESSENTIAL COMPLEMENT.
The artist’s natural complement is therefore the muse: a being who allows the artist to release the creative force within. (Channelling the artist’s energies, or indirect inspiration.) In many cases, it is also towards the muse that the artist directs this force (direct inspiration).
The Venus of Willendorf! Strange though it may seem, thousands of years ago, it is entirely possible that the Venus of Willendorf was the result of a particular feeling between a Palaeolithic man and a woman of his time. Even if, from the outset, everyone agrees that this limestone artefact is one of the earliest human representations of fertility, we may consider these two stimulating ideas compatible.
The ancient Greeks granted part of their rich mythological heavens to imaginary women—obviously—fabulous goddesses who presided over the liberal arts of the time. These were the Muses. One of them was associated with each noble art of that era. The importance of the whole body of ideas inherited from ancient Greece, the “cornerstone” of our present culture, explains the still-living image of being under the aegis of the muses.
We must also note that another great civilisation, without explicitly saying so, tacitly acknowledged through its culture the importance of this principle of the “muse.” This role, briefly held by men in its beginnings, then by women endowed with altruistic virtues and a faithful self-sacrifice towards their lords, is very clearly illustrated by geishas, whose very historical existence underscores the crucial importance of such beings in the art of inspiring dreams. For indeed, can we imagine Japanese culture without these exotic personalities?... Or sketch Japanese prints from memory without them?
Along the same lines, might the courtesans of the Renaissance not have had the same happy effects on painters attached... to the court and in the service of capricious but aesthetically minded kings? Imagine the following situation: an official artist spends weeks painting a young queen. Dressed in her finest attire, she poses for him. Their eyes meet and she smiles at him. Will he not enrich the work with that lived moment?
Even if doubt will always linger over the identity of the model, and although this artist of genius also designed machines of war, Leonardo da Vinci undoubtedly felt particular vibrations before Mona Lisa. Whatever the many hypotheses surrounding the work and the origin of the model, there is no doubt that the Mona Lisa was a true muse.
History contains a great many such women. Here are only a few more recent ones, presented in chronological order.
— George Sand, a woman of letters of the previous century; she inspired several works by Frédéric Chopin during their seven-year relationship. A small reminder: Sand was a feminist. “Irrefutable proof that the muse is not necessarily a mawkish imaginary figure or a passive principle!”
— Gala for Dalí. For the famous and divine painter, everything passed through Gala. After her death in 1982, the artist’s health declined. Given the extent to which this woman revealed herself as a muse, let us remember that Gala, before meeting Dalí... was the wife of the poet Paul Éluard.
— Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. The intellectual couple! Who was the muse?... The inspirations of one no doubt passed through the analytical deepening of the other’s experiences.
— Marilyn Monroe (see also later in the text) for Arthur Miller. It is acknowledged that this writer drew inspiration from his famous wife for the screenplay of the film “The Misfits.” Even if he preferred to isolate himself in his quarters to imagine..., his soul could only have been steeped in the emanations of the most extraordinary acts of intercourse with this exciting woman. “But how did he manage to type?”
— Jane Fonda for Roger Vadim. We could no doubt mention other muses in the life of this great filmmaker, such as the ever-astonishing Brigitte Bardot. But let us suggest that a very clear, audacious nobility shines through Madame Fonda’s face, an aspect that surely did not fail to inspire the director.
— Yoko Ono and John Lennon. This woman, a painter of undeniable talent, gave the extraordinary John Lennon the chance to experience intensely the presence of a muse in his life. Without commenting on Lennon’s “pre-Yoko” works or his “Yoko period,” let us note that his poetry seems to attain a different colour and language after her arrival. That wonderful song, “WOMAN,” would never have been the same—or might never have existed—without Yoko’s presence beside him.
Finally, do we not also say that behind every great man there is a... woman? Why not recast the saying as follows?... “Often, behind every great man, there is a woman... more extraordinary than he is.”
DISCOVERING A MUSE.
Let us begin by extrapolating that in “The Birth of Venus,” a work by Botticelli representing the Italic goddess, the artist expressed through allegory maturity, inspiration, charm, and beauty—qualities required for this “particular vocation” of the muse. The painter therefore compares Venus—who, in the male imagination, also gives rise to the idea of the muse—to a rare pearl.
This symbolism implies that a being of such quality does not appear overnight. She does not discover this gift in a cereal box. Her own discovery results from a complex evolution. This “deep awareness” is in fact a very rare event, and the reflex to make use of this gift is not triggered automatically.
Likewise, these two full-fledged beings, living parallel lives, might often achieve emancipation and radiance only through their symbiosis. Some women are simply flattered to receive a poem, inspire a song, or be the model for a painting, and do not realise that they generate energies complementary to the artist’s creativity. Their silence therefore gives all the credit to the artist. They cannot benefit from the repercussions of an official acknowledgement revealing that they are a source, a light, a catalyst for talent. Are muses fundamentally discreet beings?
THE MUSE BECOMES AWARE.
A muse who grasps the importance of her existence beside a particular artist... or even of her dynamic within an artistic movement, for the benefit of culture, possesses a profound awareness of History. Her transcendent presence and overall influence will be perceived in the creative evolution and throughout the body of work... and will sometimes even manifest themselves in flashes of genius.
INVISIBLE SIGNS AND SUBLIMINAL GRAFFITI.
Who knows... whether, when a moment of reverie arises in us, the observers—a kind of swoon while listening to or looking at a work—we have not in fact just deciphered a poetic instant lived by the author... Like a reading at the subconscious level...
Who knows... whether, like a subliminal message, certain exquisite and privileged moments in the creation of works, as witnesses to the complicity between artist and muse, are not inscribed within them?
Who knows... whether, at such moments, we have not just crossed into a zone beyond critical analysis and established patterns... Like becoming aware of a language and vocabulary that are invisible and unique to each work. A concentrated marker of signs that determines quality. “The masterpiece or the daub?” And why not?...
Who knows... whether we human beings, who are only a little more than animals, do not have the power to imprint life with our passage in a way unique to our nature; a way whose perception our chemically unbalanced earthly environment would now dull?
Who knows whether these marks, as reminders of our passage, might not be a psychic extension of our human drive to reproduce?
Who knows whether this instinctive desire is not rooted in our genes?
Finally, who can prove that muses do not possess this troubling chemistry that leads the artist, by forcing him beyond the animal framework, to leave his mark on time, to give signs of his dreams?
THE ENCOUNTER.
Under such conditions, what artist does not hope for such an encounter? What artist would not be affected by the striking discovery of a muse? This emotional response, betrayed by signs or subtly revealed by his subconscious, like a projection of his soul, may lead the artist to notice immediately the being that destiny presents to him, provided he is free of all preoccupation.
Without attributing to the artist a state or sensitivity different from those of his fellow human beings, let us consider that he continually seeks to inscribe in time every privileged relationship that moves him. He is attentive.
Yet, paradoxically, he is someone who constantly seeks light while keeping himself in a state comparable to the first phase of hypnosis. He may be “moonstruck,” distracted.
This state of semi-consciousness will allow him to perceive a being who is naturally complementary to him. He may perceive in that being the radiance of great sensitivity. This perception develops through the discovery of “lush landscapes” in her eyes. He may imagine that this dreamlike phenomenon will continue beyond the first contact. For he knows that the muse can become a bond, a path, a means of drawing nearer to pure creation.
This relationship, carried to the extreme, may lead creators to regard this “half” as indispensable, even vital. (Dalí and Gala.)
Because a muse is unlikely to identify herself as such, the “chemical process” begins first with the artist’s astonishment. The reverse movement (a muse certain of her power to inspire) would reveal great pretension.
His intuition will tell him, like a surge of inspiration, that he is in the presence of a muse. Since the anticipated reactions resemble those of love at first sight, he may become awkward in his approach if he lacks confidence, or exasperating if he is pretentious. Distinguishing between the phenomenon of love and the recognition of a muse can prove complicated, because both involve giving generously of one’s time and attaching importance to the present moment.
THE EXCHANGE.
Indeed, only those directly involved can distinguish, through intensity or duration, these two wonderful things. In the latter case, if love envelops the relationship between the two individuals, the muse’s natural influence is increased. Sincere and profound love between these two beings will be reflected in the quality and extent of the production.
In short! If we momentarily set love aside, a deeper relationship may nevertheless follow if the muse possesses the wisdom and maturity—or, equivalently, the boldness—needed for a sudden awareness of this gift. This quality takes, so to speak, the form of power and influence. But the muse herself may doubt her capacity to inspire or consider it futile. Under such conditions, the artist must consider that this person may already have been the victim of a “muse-muzzler” (more on that later).
Who knows whether... for the artist, this imperceptible chemistry of the muse might not simply show through in her features?
This mention of a chemical process, this assertion of a particular chemistry, can obviously be neither proved nor disproved. Here, we move beyond the bounds of reality and reach the artist’s very world: the dynamic universe of the artist inspired by a muse. It is the planet of consciously unfolding fabulations, the higher spheres of cultivated imagination and fantasy.
Most artists know the limits of their talent. If a dry spell occurs, the cause is not necessarily attributable to the muse! The quality of a muse’s magnetism may vary according to her “chemical structure,” receptivity, and intentions. In short, if there is a continuation—and therefore mutual recognition—love or a great friendship may arise.
MOULTS WITHOUT MUSES.
In the dramatic situation where the muse does not recognise herself as such, either for him or for another creator, the artist must resign himself to letting go. Yet, for the sake of art, he must keep hoping that, even if he is absent from her life, she will eventually understand the extent of the wonder that makes her what she is. The artist may turn to creation as an outlet for his unhappiness. But he must take care not to trap himself in the ceaseless cultivation of his own turmoil! Even if he knows that rejected friendship is often an indication of repression, at least in a minimal form.
Through final efforts, projections, transfers, and inspirational placebos—different for each person, alcohol and drugs being two sad realities—the artist may still create. But he will never attain that naturally and instinctively sought passion, that almost religious intention devoted to the instinctive love of humanity, to his vocation for art and, with luck, above all to his love for the muse.
Creating without being inspired by a particular muse is a simple reality. Other elements can transcend the artist’s soul and help a work grow; an ideal or nature can be a source. That is a fact. It may result in valid productions. But under such conditions, for the work to establish itself over time as extraordinary, must we believe that the artist’s imagination personifies itself in dreams through female symbolism? A kind of dreamlike outlet, a transposition of passion in the form of an inner muse? An emissary, an intermediary between the conscious and the subconscious?
MUSE-MUZZLERS.
One of humanity’s serious problems, an obstacle to its evolution, is that we men have, for centuries, been above all “muse-muzzlers.” Bitter truth! The first muse-muzzlers are often artists who, under the guidance of their art, in order to satisfy—even innocently—their normal sexual needs, resort to cunning to attract them. “You inspire me!” “I want to paint you!” We know the cliché. Yet the trap is easy to avoid: take the time to study the situation. “...caution in love...” After the transgression..., budding muses doubt themselves. (“I thought I inspired him?”) The process by which their gift emancipates itself is interrupted.
The second category consists of charmers who possess no talent and pretend to be artists. “You inspire me!” “I want to paint you!” “I’d write a novel!” They merely doodle while talking on the telephone or write one single poem of four “lines.” “But there is also love...” Afterward, these potential muses become defensive (“I won’t let myself be fooled again!”) and eventually close themselves off.
The third and worst category: men who beat women. These people destroy more than muses! It is the destruction of life! Love is murdered with fists! It is the “murder of the soul.” It is “the satanic erosion of the evolution of the being and of sensitivity.” A brake on the evolution of humanity.
MARILYN MONROE: AN IMMORTAL POPCORN MUSE.
As mentioned earlier, recognition of the muse often forms part of the creative process. Consequently, to this are added the dreams or states of reverie that the inspirer’s “image” triggers in the artist’s subconscious. The image she projects onto the artist is crucial to the qualitative and quantitative values of the production.
Under such conditions, how can we explain the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon? She is not a model who corresponds to the current canons and conventions of fashion. Nor did the goddess fit them any more closely ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago! So how can she still seduce? How can she still make people dream? How can we explain her belonging to the mid-twentieth century if her image imposes itself as timeless?
A great many artists around the world have been inspired by her even beyond... her death. Tomorrow, everywhere, new ideas that showcase her will once again burst forth in creators’ imaginations. This phenomenon is the popcorn effect!
Paul Claudel said: “Even intelligence functions fully only under the influence of desire.” Would Marilyn still arouse desire despite the “awareness” of her disappearance? She was an inspiring force in herself.
The shocking echoes of her private life, the soft vibrations of her voice, the air displaced by those suggestive movements of her hips—all that and much more is like the first wingbeats that set the dynamics of the butterfly effect in motion.
Several years after her disappearance, her image still inspires, and this peculiarity becomes, in a sense, an artificial extension of her breath and of her wish to be loved. This beguiling quality, which draws us closer to her soul, and her “subconscious” alchemy compel us to place her among the immortal muses.
Artists of Marilyn’s time and our contemporaries, famous or unknown, have felt the spell of that indescribable Marilynian quality and transposed their impressions into their works. The song “Candle in the Wind,” created by Elton John, is a fine example. Moreover, it is a work I would describe as “spirituphile” (see Philo on this site). Its second version, devoted to Lady Diana, changes nothing.
No one can doubt that, with all the objects and publications about Marilyn Monroe, and above all with her own cultural legacy, an entire museum could already be devoted to her. Inevitably, a section would have to be added presenting some of those works that sprang from her “musal” influence. Finally, let us not hide the fact that this extraordinary presence is attributed to the “star system.” But let us not hide either the fact that Marilyn Monroe possessed a human quality, a gift that no organisation will ever be able to reproduce. Not even by cloning! Beneath her artist’s skin, she was a muse.
FOR THE RECOGNITION OF MUSES.
What would the world be without muses? What would become of the beauty and majesty of all the world’s civilisations without them? Have muses not earned official recognition? Some will probably doubt the truth of the very idea of inspiration and, consequently, of muses. To them I say: “Keep your sanitised world, purged of all reverie, to yourselves, and if you are deeply unhappy, you now know the cause! You lack poetry!”
If, even in the manner of drops of water wearing away a stone, today’s civilisations simply acknowledged the importance of the inspirer in the life of every creator—with governments intervening officially through their ministries of Culture—it would be one more step forward for Humanity. For everything, in the social evolution of “Man,” must henceforth pass through the steps taken by Woman.
But there are not only great muses; there are the many ordinary women who simply encourage ordinary men to develop their talents. Just as there are ordinary men who encourage ordinary women to develop theirs. All of this with the humble aim of improving their surroundings and their lot. In their own way, in their respective arts, artists speak of these muses, draw life from their presence, and nourish their souls with it; thanks to them, simply by improving their own lives, they also enrich the lives of other human beings.
Muses: Louise L. and M. M.
1 — The Greek Muses: Clio for epic poetry and history, Euterpe for music, Thalia for comedy, Melpomene for tragedy, Terpsichore watching over dance, Erato for elegy (a sorrowful song), Polyhymnia for lyric poetry, Urania enthroned over astronomy, and finally Calliope stimulating eloquence.
2 — A hypothesis about the interrelation of things according to which the movement of air caused by a butterfly flapping its wings in China “could,” through an exponential effect, end in a violent storm elsewhere on the planet.