By Prakhar Shukla
What is it that stirs the artist to create? Is it a whisper from an unseen force, a fleeting image, a dream half-remembered? The muse—mystical, human, or entirely imaginary—has long stood at the threshold of inspiration, inviting the artist into the sacred space of creation. But is the muse truly a necessity, or is it simply a convenient myth, a poetic justification for the inexplicable process of artistic birth? And if the muse exists, how much control does it exert over the final work? Do we shape our muses, or do they shape us?
Ancient poets did not hesitate to call upon the divine. Homer, in The Iliad, does not begin of his own accord—he invokes: “Sing, O Muse, of the wrath of Achilles…” This is no humble request; it is a declaration that the poet is merely the instrument, the voice through which a greater force speaks. The Renaissance saw a shift—the muse was no longer a distant goddess but a mortal woman, inspiring devotion and despair in equal measure. Dante’s Beatrice, Petrarch’s Laura—these muses became flesh, their influence not diminished but deepened, more personal, more haunting.
Yet, can the artist not create without them? T. S. Eliot, in Tradition and the Individual Talent, argues that the artist is not merely a passive recipient but an active force: “The poet’s mind is a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, images, which remain there until all the particles unite to form a new compound.” If the muse is anything, it is a collection of those stored impressions—a reflection rather than an architect, a spark rather than the fire itself.
Whether real or imagined, the muse leaves fingerprints upon the work. Shakespeare’s sonnets, especially those addressed to the Fair Youth, are love letters to inspiration itself: “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” The muse is more than subject; it is the very lifeblood of the poem, the force that compels it into being. Edgar Allan Poe’s Annabel Lee does not merely recall lost love—it makes the muse immortal, woven into the very structure of grief and beauty: “But we loved with a love that was more than love…”
But is this devotion to the muse a form of surrender? Percy Bysshe Shelley, in A Defence of Poetry, describes poets as “the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” Yet, if poets legislate, who writes their laws? The muse, or something else? Can one write without longing? Can one paint without a vision? Can art be born without the ache of inspiration?
The modern artist, perhaps, no longer looks outward for a muse but inward. Virginia Woolf, in A Room of One’s Own, challenges the very idea that the muse must be external, noting that history has often denied women the right to create, casting them instead as inspiration rather than artist. “For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.” If the muse was once a necessary force, must it still be? Or has the artist become their own muse, drawing from the depths of memory, experience, and the inexhaustible well of self?
This shift marks not the disappearance of the muse but its transformation. The act of creation is no longer seen as a divine bestowal but as a process of self-exploration and reinvention. Sylvia Plath, in Ariel, does not wait for an external muse to visit; she wrenches inspiration from her own existence, her struggles, her psyche. The tortured genius no longer looks to a distant beloved but to the depths of their own mind, mining personal experience, pain, and triumph for art. The confessional poets—Plath, Anne Sexton, Robert Lowell—turn the gaze inward, exposing the muse not as a separate entity but as an inextricable part of the self.
Even in fiction, the muse is no longer a passive presence. In Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Unconsoled, inspiration is a labyrinth, an ever-shifting enigma within the artist’s mind rather than an external figure to be worshipped. Borges, in The Aleph, presents a poet in search of infinite vision, only to find that true creation is not given—it is perceived. Italo Calvino, in If on a Winter’s Night a Traveler, turns the reader into the muse, suggesting that inspiration is not dictated but interactive.
In this landscape, the artist does not await divine intervention; they seize it. The muse is no longer the ethereal whisper but the voice in one’s own head, the echoes of past influences, the stories yet untold. If the muse has died, it has also been reborn—fragmented, internalized, multiplied. It is no longer an entity apart but an inseparable shadow of the artist.
Rainer Maria Rilke, in Letters to a Young Poet, advises: “Go into yourself. Find out the reason that commands you to write…” Perhaps this is the only certainty: the muse, whether divine or mortal, external or internal, is but a reflection of the artist’s own need to create. It is not the source of art but the shape we give to longing, the face we assign to inspiration’s fleeting touch. If the muse exists, it is not a goddess upon a pedestal, nor a lover lost to time, but something even more elusive—something found in the very act of creation itself.
Support Our Journalism
Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.
Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism.
