To understand this relationship clearly we must first understand the concept of transformational objects. The first and original transformational object in each of our lives was our primary caregiver. We were unable to do much more than objectify at that stage because our brains were not equipped with apparatus to clearly differentiate between people, or even self and other. As infants we were sometimes distressed and we had no way to sort this distress for ourselves either. So we screamed and someone came and changed our nappy, or we were hungry so we cried and mother put us on her breast and we gained both warmth and nurture, of food and contact with human skin. Our distress was alleviated, transformed by this other, who we perceived and used as an object as though they were an extension of us and there as a means to an end. If we had good primary caregivers then at some point we would learn to solve our own distress and separate from the primary caregiver, initially through the use of a transitional object such as a teddy bear or blanket. When I talk of the transformational object in adult life I speak of a person relegated to the task of alleviating someone else’s internal distress.
Between artist and muse there is always an element of objectification. The muse is used for, or as, inspiration. The inspiration is bestowed upon the artist via the muse as though it is a divine gift, an external source which allows for the removal of creative blocks and productivity follows. The exterior object “muse” is in this case a transformational object. The muse is employed to produce within the artist a transformation which he/she can not produce for themselves. For the most part, initially at least there is at least a contract, a negotiated objectification with consent. Though these are often ignored later in the relationship and the objectification takes on a more unpleasant guise.
This transformation allows contact between the artists felt experience and the art, the muse enables the connection via inspiration. As a transformational object the muse likely replaces the artists primary caregiver, or the original transformational object. The artist is happy to accept the gift of inspiration and temporarily casts the muse aside in order to create. There is a coming back together to maintain the inspiration. Call that excitement, love, contact, call it what you will. Simultaneously the artist will understand through the unthought known that this is not entirely him creating the work and that he is not independent. The relationship to the muse takes on a symbiotic or obsessional character. An entanglement and a knowledge that independence has been lost. This is at the very least transference, as the muse replaces and represents the primary caregiver or aspects of what was required from the primary caregiver, be that comfort, acceptance, sustenance, excitation, calming or any other function of parental support.
The artist will at some point begin to need separation from the muse in order to feel peace again, to feel as though he can create on his/her own; but again without this external stimulus, creative expression will be hindered once again. Blocked entirely or half-heartedly expressed in mediocre work which the artist has no love for. The need for separation being a direct mirror to the separation of child from primary caregiver and the need for muse an attempt to transform ones internal dis-ease into something else.
When apart from the muse the artist is likely to experience separation anxiety or even remorse for abandoning the muse. If the muse is replaced the new muse is unlikely to live up to the expectations of the original muse, unlikely to inspire much more than impasse and frustration. The artist lacks connection with his world and can not allow the new transformational object to exist. He has projected his own creative potency out into the first muse and the obsession is set.
It is quite possible the artist also uses the muse as a sex object, lacking in the input of idea and discourse, just existing as a libidinal object to enable flow of libidinous energy expressed in graphic form. When this is the case the muse is still a transformational object, transforming the artists internal distress and frustration into relief and expression. But clearly not a separate individual with agency, autonomy, separate boundaries or a voice.
If the artist has conflated his hunger to create with other hungers such as sex and the muse has become both muse and mistress an intense exchange will likely ensue. Ideas and creative energy will combine to provide inspiration for masterful work, be that stunning poetry or powerfully embodied sculpture. But as the person has been lost in the muse and the boundaries merged, the outcome for artist and muse is rarely harmonious. Conflict between self and creative urge, confused with libidinal passions render rational thought improbable. Satisfaction, in the sense of mutual coexistent satisfaction sought within a contactful relationship can not be created as confluence and objectification have taken place.
After the person has been reduced to an object the objectifier, on achieving the goal, may experience disgust toward the object, a projected self loathing, given away with responsibility to the muse in this case, but it could be any objectified person. For example you will hear it a lot from people who use pornography, in that after achieving orgasm, they become disgusted with the person they were looking at. What these people rarely see is that they are in effect disgusted with themselves and projecting it away. Much like when the artist gives away responsibility for creative effort to the muse and then rejects the muse shortly afterward, lest the artist become too aware that the muse was needed to create the art.
So the need for muse and the need for a sexual object come from the same source. The transformational object, and more than likely an inadequate transformational object in the objectificer’s past has left an unfinished situation the artist is attempting to complete through repetition.
Still we have another issue. Clearly the traditional muse has a purpose and within the construct of consent can be the catalyst for the release of creative force and productivity. But the effect of objectification stretches outside the boundaries of consent when the muse is discarded, boundaries are ignored or sexual entanglement becomes part of the relationship. Often resulting in harm, particularly to the muse. That part should not be ignored or underplayed.
So how do we represent beauty? particularly beauty which inspires us, and when that beauty is portrayed with nudity? How do we portray that without resorting to objectification? Or is it that the objectification will always exist for the viewer, even if the intent of the artist was simply to create? I am assuming here that the model has given consent and understands what is being requested and portrayed. If you have thoughts about this quandary I would very much welcome your input.
Human beings are for me intrinsically beautiful. I want to be able to capture that beauty and express it through art. But I want to avoid blatant objectification too. I have spent a number of years working on my own psyche and the effects of transformational objects, both healthy and unhealthy. And yet, I do want to express my profound connection to humanity and the beauty we embody.
Leave a Reply