INTRODUCTION
A woman—or rather, an inspiring woman—who persists in the mind of an artist; sometimes a model who leads that artist toward a rich body of new and distinct creative work; often, too, a friend whose “reign” gives meaning to the artist’s existence: this is the essence of the unique muse.
More simply put, a muse is a source of powerful stimulation for anyone endowed with a certain creative potential, enabling that person to express the emotion she awakens in him. This pleasant tension..., this inclination to create, may unfold over a short period, a medium span, or even an entire lifetime.
THE NOTION OF THE ARTIST!....A NATURAL VALUE.
There is no need to dwell at length on what enabled “Nature,” in its purposes, to foresee the existence of beings endowed with a precise faculty for abstraction and with a deep desire to materialize its results. The artist exists. We know that people are born with talents—young Mozart is the clearest example. We also know that “Nature” has planned, for its own survival, a form of balance. In a nature thrown off axis, 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 living within him. (By channeling his energy, or through indirect inspiration.) In many cases, it is also toward her that he releases this force (direct inspiration).
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 special feeling between a Paleolithic man, becoming for a time a sculptor of stone, and the woman who inspired the work. Even if everyone agrees from the outset that this limestone artifact is one of the earliest human representations of fertility, we may still consider that these two stimulating ideas are compatible.
The ancient Greeks granted a place in their rich mythological heavens to imaginary women—fabulous goddesses presiding over the liberal arts of their age. These were the Muses. For every noble art of that time, one of them served as a companion. (1) The importance of ancient Greece as a cultural “cornerstone” of the modern world helps explain this enduring image of existing under the aegis of the muses.
We must also note that another great civilization, without explicitly affirming it, tacitly acknowledged through its culture the importance of this principle of the “muse.” A role first held briefly by men, then by women endowed with altruistic virtues and faithful self-sacrifice toward their lords, the Geishas clearly reveal through their historical existence the crucial importance of these “dreamlike beings.” For indeed, can we imagine Japanese culture without these exotic presences?..... Or recall Japanese prints from memory without them?
In the same way, would not the courtesans of the Renaissance have had equally happy effects upon painters attached to the court and to the capricious yet aesthetic service of kings? Imagine the following situation: an official artist works for weeks at a time painting a young queen. Dressed in her finest attire, she poses for him. Their eyes meet, and she smiles at him. Would he not enrich the work with the lived intensity of that moment?
Although some doubt will always remain regarding the identity of the model, and although the artist also designed war machines, Leonardo da Vinci undoubtedly felt particular vibrations in the presence of the Mona Lisa. Whatever the many assumptions surrounding the work and the origin of its model, there is no doubt that Mona Lisa was a true muse.
History includes a number of such women. Here are just a few recent examples, presented in chronological order.
- George Sand, the woman writer of the last century, inspired several works by Frédéric Chopin during the seven years of their relationship. A brief reminder: Sand was a feminist. “Undeniable proof that the muse is not necessarily an imaginary element, nor 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. Considering the revealing “musal” aspect of this woman, we should remember that Gala, before meeting Dalí, had been the wife of the poet Paul Éluard.
- Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. The couple of intellectuals! Who was the muse?..... The inspiration of one probably passed through the analytical deepening of the other’s experience.
- Marilyn Monroe (see also later in the text) for Arthur Miller. It is acknowledged that this writer was inspired by his famous wife in writing the screenplay for The Misfits. Even if he preferred to isolate himself in his quarters in order to imagine..., his soul could only have been permeated by the most extraordinary scents of intimacy with that exciting woman. “But how did he manage to type?”
- Jane Fonda for Roger Vadim. We could probably mention other muses in the life of this great filmmaker, such as the ever-surprising Brigitte Bardot. But let us focus on the fact that Madame Fonda’s face bears a clear and daring nobility—an aspect that surely did not fail to inspire the film director.
- Yoko Ono and John Lennon. This woman, a painter of undeniable talent, gave the extraordinary John Lennon the chance to live intensely the phenomenon of a muse’s presence in his life. Without commenting on Lennon’s “pre-Yoko” works or his “Yoko period,” it should be noted that his poetry seems to acquire a different color and language after her arrival. That wonderful song, WOMAN, would never have been the same—or might never have existed at all—without Yoko’s presence beside him.
After all, do we not say that behind every great man there is a woman? Why should the adage not be reworked in the following way?..... “Often, behind every great man, there is a woman... more extraordinary than he is.”
TO DISCOVER A MUSE.
Let us begin by extrapolating only from Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus. In this work, through his allegorical representation of the Italian goddess, the painter expressed maturity by associating her with inspiration, charm, and beauty—qualities required for this “special vocation” of the muse. Thus the painter compares Venus (who, in the heart of every male imagination, also generates the idea of the muse) to a rare pearl.
This symbolism implies that such a being does not appear overnight. She does not discover this gift in a cereal box. Her own discovery is the result of a complex evolutionary process. This “deep awareness” is in fact a very rare event, and the reflex of using this gift does not arise automatically.
In the same way, these two full-fledged beings, living parallel lives, may often only be able to emancipate themselves and shine through their symbiosis. Many women are simply flattered to receive a poem, to inspire a song, or to serve as the model for a painting, and they do not realize that they generate energies complementary to the artist’s creativity. Their silence therefore gives all the credit to him. They may not benefit from the consequences of an official acknowledgment revealing that they are a source, a light, a catalyst of talent. Are muses, fundamentally, discreet beings?
AWARENESS OF THE MUSE.
A muse who understands the importance of her existence for a specific artist—or even for the dynamics of an artistic movement, for the benefit of culture—possesses a profound sense of history. Her transcendent presence and her wider influence will be perceived in the creative evolution and body of work produced, and will sometimes even be felt in the very features of geniuses.
INVISIBLE SIGNS AND SUBLIMINAL GRAFFITI.
Who knows..... whether, in us as observers, when a moment of reverie, like a swoon, occurs while listening to or contemplating a work, we have not just deciphered a poetic moment experienced by its author.... Like a reading at the subconscious level....
Who knows... whether, in the manner of a subliminal message, certain exquisite and privileged moments in the creation of works—witnesses to the complicity between artist and muse—may not be engraved there.
Who knows... whether at such moments we have not just crossed into a zone that goes beyond critical analysis and established schematics.... Like the awareness of a language and an invisible, unique vocabulary for each work. A concentrated reference point of signs that determines quality: “Masterpiece or mere daub?” And why not?....
Who knows... whether we human beings, who are only slightly more than animals, do not possess the power to permeate life with our passage in a way unique to our nature. A way whose perception our chemically unbalanced terrestrial environment today diminishes.
Who knows whether these marks, as reminders of our passage, might not be like a psychic extension of the human impulse to reproduce.
Finally, who can prove that muses do not possess precisely this troubling chemistry that leads the artist, by forcing him beyond the animal framework, to mark time and to signal dreams?
THE ENCOUNTER.
Under such conditions, what artist does not hope for such an encounter? What artist would remain untouched by the impressive discovery of a muse, revealed by signs or subtly disclosed by the subconscious mind, like a projection of the soul? The artist can at once perceive the being that fate presents to him—provided he is free of distraction.
Without attributing to the artist a state or sensitivity different from that of his peers, let us say that he continually seeks to inscribe over time any privileged relationship that moves him. He is attentive.
But paradoxically, he is an individual who constantly seeks light while maintaining himself in a state comparable to the first phase of hypnosis. He may appear “lunatic,” distracted.
This state of semi-consciousness allows him to perceive a being naturally complementary to him. He will be able to perceive in that being the radiance of a great sensitivity. This observation develops through the discovery of “abundant landscapes” in the exploration of her eyes. One may expect that this dreamlike phenomenon will continue beyond first contact. For he knows that the muse can become a bond, a path, a way of connecting with pure creation.
This relation, pushed to its extreme, may lead creators to regard this “other half” as essential, even vital. (Dalí and Gala.)
Since it is improbable that a muse identifies herself as such—either for herself or for another creator—the “chemical process” begins, at first astonishing the artist. The opposite movement, that of a muse certain of her power to inspire, would suggest a great pretentiousness.
His intuition will indicate to him, like a burst of inspiration, the muse. Since the anticipated sensations resemble those of love at first sight, it is possible that 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 be complicated, because in both cases there is generosity of time and a heightened value placed on the present moment.
THE EXCHANGE.
Indeed, only those directly involved can distinguish, by intensity and/or duration, these two wonderful realities. In the latter case, if love envelops the relationship between the two individuals, it increases the natural influence of the muse. 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, the muse may still be entitled to a deeper relation: wisdom and maturity—or, equivalently, the boldness required for the sudden awareness of this gift. A quality that, so to speak, assumes the form of power and impact. But the muse herself may doubt her power to inspire, or consider it futile. In such conditions, the artist must assume that this person has already been the victim of a “muse-silencer” (more on that later).
Who knows whether, for the artist, this chemistry of the muse does not simply reveal itself in her face.
This mention of a chemical process, this assertion of a special chemistry, can obviously neither be proved nor refuted. The frameworks of reality are outdated here, and we reach the very world of the artist: the artist’s dynamic universe inspired by a muse. It is the planet of conscious, ascending fabulations; the high 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. Even though the magnetic quality that a muse possesses may vary according to her “chemical structure,” receptivity, and intentions. In short, if there is continuity—and therefore mutual recognition—love or a great friendship may emerge.
MOULTED WITHOUT MUSES.
In the dramatic situation where the muse does not recognize herself as such—neither for herself nor for any creator—the artist must renounce. Yet for the sake of art, he must continue to hope that even if she is absent from his life, she may eventually understand the extent of the marvel that composes her. The artist may use creation as an outlet for his misfortune. But he must beware of becoming trapped in the incessant cultivation of his own disorder! Even if he knows that rejected friendship is often at least a minimal sign of repression.
Through final efforts, through projections, transfers, or inspirational placebos (different for each—alcohol and drugs being two sad realities), the artist may still create. But he will never attain that natural passion instinctively sought. That almost religious intention.... because it is devoted to the instinctive love of humanity, to the vocation of art, and, hopefully, above all, to love of the muse.
To create without being inspired by a particular muse is both real and simple. Other elements may elevate the soul of the artist and nourish a work; an ideal or nature itself may serve as a source. That is a fact. It may result in valid productions. But under such conditions, for the work to become extraordinary over time, should we believe that the artist’s imagination personifies itself in dreams under a female symbolism? A kind of dreamlike outlet, a transposition of his passion in the form of an inner muse? An ambassador, an intermediary between the conscious and the subconscious?
MUSE SNUBBERS.
One of humanity’s serious problems, and a pitfall in its evolution, is that we men have long been—especially through the centuries—snubbers of muses.
Bitter truth! The first category of muse-snubbers is often composed of artists who, under the guidance of their art and in order to satisfy their ordinary sexual needs—even innocently—use art as bait. “You inspire me!” “I want to paint you!” We know the cliché. It is, however, easy to avoid the trap: ...take the time to study the situation. “...caution in love...” After the damage is done, these emerging muses begin to doubt themselves. (I thought I inspired?) The process of emancipating their gift is interrupted.
The second category consists of charmers with no talent who nevertheless claim to be artists. “You inspire me!” “I want to paint you!” “I’d write a novel!” Such people merely scribble while talking on the phone, or write a single poem of four “lines.” “But there is also love....” Afterward, those who might have become muses become defensive. (I will not be trapped again!) And they end up closing in on themselves.
The third and worst category: abusers of women. These people destroy more than muses! They destroy life itself. Love is murdered with a blow. It is the “murder of the soul.” It is the satanic erosion of the evolution of being and of sensitivity. A brake upon the evolution of humanity.
MARILYN MONROE: AN IMMORTAL POPCORN MUSE.
As mentioned above, the creative process often includes recognition of the muse. To this are added dreams or states of reverie, as well as the “image” of the inspirer, which enters the subconscious mind of the artist. The image that she imposes upon him is essential to the qualitative and quantitative value of the production.
Under such conditions, how can we explain the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon? She is not a model corresponding to today’s canons and conventions of fashion. And she was not the “goddess” of ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago either! So how does 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?
Many artists throughout the world have been inspired by her beyond her death. Everywhere, tomorrow once again, new ideas will burst forth in the imagination of creators and place her in the light. This phenomenon is the popcorn effect!
Paul Claudel said: “Even intelligence functions fully only under the influence of desire.” Would Marilyn still awaken desire, despite the awareness of her disappearance?
She was an inspiring force in herself. The startling echoes of her private life, the soft vibrations of her voice, the air displaced by the sustained movement of her hips—all this and much more is like the first beating of wings that initiates the dynamics of the butterfly effect. (2)
Several years after her disappearance, her image still inspires, and this peculiarity becomes, in short, an artificial extension of her breath and of her desire to be loved. This enchanting figure, by drawing us closer to her soul, compels us through its “subconscious” alchemy to place her among the immortal muses.
The artists of Marilyn’s own time, as well as our contemporaries, famous or unknown, have felt the spell of that indescribable Marilynian quality and transposed their impressions into their works. Candle in the Wind, created by Elton John, is a good example. Moreover, it is a work that I would describe as “spiritual” (see on this site CRAZY PHILOSOPHY). Its second version, devoted to Lady Diana, does not alter that.
No one can doubt that, with all the objects and publications devoted to Marilyn Monroe—and above all with her own cultural legacy—we could already dedicate an entire museum to her. Inevitably, one section would have to present those works born from her “musal” influence. In the end, let us not hide the fact that this extraordinary presence is usually attributed to the star system. But let us also not hide the fact that Marilyn Monroe possessed a human quality, a gift that no organization will ever be able to reproduce. Not even by cloning! Beneath the star’s image, she was a muse.
FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THE MUSE.
What would the world be without muses? What would become of the beauty and majesty of all the world’s civilizations without them? Did muses not deserve official recognition? No doubt some will continue to question the truth of the very idea of inspiration, and therefore of muses. To them I say: “Keep your sanitized world, stripped of all daydreaming, to yourselves—and if you are deeply unhappy, you now know the cause! You lack poetry!”
If today’s civilizations were simply to acknowledge the importance of the inspirer in the life of every creator—even in the manner in which water, drop by drop, wears away stone, and with governments intervening officially through their ministries of culture—it would be one more step forward for humanity.
Because everything in the social evolution of “Man” must now pass through the steps already taken by Woman.But there are not only great muses; there are also the many women of the crowd who simply encourage men to develop their talents. Just as there are ordinary men who encourage ordinary women to develop theirs. All this with the humble objective of improving their environment and their fate. In their respective ways, in their respective arts, artists speak of it, live it, nourish the soul through their presence, and, by simply improving their own lives, enrich the lives of other human beings.
Muses: Louise L. and M.M.
1*- Greek Muses: Clio for epic poetry and history, Euterpe for music, Thalia for comedy, Melpomene for tragedy, Terpsichore watching over dance, Erato over elegy (the sorrowful song), Polyhymnia over lyrical poetry, Urania enthroned over astronomy, and finally Calliope stimulating eloquence. *Description found on the internet. Source unknown.
2- Hypothesis concerning the interrelation of things, according to which the air movement caused by a butterfly flapping its wings in China “could” end, through an exponential effect, in a violent storm elsewhere on the planet.