Muse — STREET SILHOUETTES

When Scarlett Johansson was cast for the lead role in the film adaptation of “Ghost in the Shell”, which was a popular Japanese manga, the Asian American community was incensed, given that her casting was regarded as yet another example of Hollywood white washing. Of course, that sentiment was not shared universally by the larger East Asian world outside the United States. If anything, Tomo, Daisuke, and Hiroko back in Japan all seemed very honored that a top tier Hollywood actress was selected to play the role of Motoko Kusanagi.

So why the difference? East Asians in East Asia do not have the same needs as East Asians in North America. Put it another way, East Asians in East Asia do not need to see an East Asian star in a Hollywood film because they can see an East Asian star in an East Asian film. In contrast, East Asians in North America need to see an East Asian star in a Hollywood film because they don’t watch East Asian films. Personally, I’m not bothered by Ms. Johansson casting - mainly because I don’t watch movies anymore. That said, I understand the debate.

Of course, the debate is somewhat more complex than who watches what movie. It is about representation, it is about jobs, and it is about fairness. However, I can understand why Ms. Johansson was cast for the role. For starters, this is a big budget Hollywood film. To justify the cost and to gain popular interest, the film does need a marquee Hollywood lead. That said, I suspect there is more to her casting than that. I believe Ms. Johansson was selected for her distinct visual presence that makes her the perfect muse for the director of the film.

Hawthorne District, Portland, Oregon - Leica M11 + Leica APO 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH-M

From Sophia Coppola’s “Lost in Translation” to her collaborations with Woody Allen to the red carpet designs of Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, Ms. Johansson is no stranger to being a muse. Whether the project calls for an ingenue or a throwback to old Hollywood glamor, Ms. Johansson provides the physical foundation to realize the selected look. Speaking as a wannabe artist myself, I know the profound effect of having a muse. It energizes one to become more personally involved in creating and extending a collaborative undertaking.

Such was the case on this photowalk. As I looked upon my partner-in-crime, I was reminded of the aria, "Les oiseaux dans la charmille", from Jacque Offenbach's operetta, “Les Contes d'Hoffmann”. My partner-in-crime evoked the spirit of Olympia, the mechanical doll that sung the aria. I realized at that moment that I had found a muse in my partner-in-crime. Like Ms. Johansson, my partner-in-crime also has that distinct visual presence that provides the physical foundation necessary to realize a very wide and eclectic range of specific looks.

Making that realization was very energizing for me. It made me regard my partner-in-crime in a different light. Given the variance of looks, my partner-in-crime could be an ingenue like Olympia, or a metro chic archetype like Deborah Harry, or even a character from William Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer’s Night Dream”. The many possible looks means that each collaborative encounter I have with my partner-in-crime could feel like a new experience. As such, I can plan accordingly so that each collaborative effort can have its own distinctive look.

This is what differentiates a muse from other subjects. It is the prospect of visual possibilities. Often with most subjects, the variance of look doesn’t change significantly. As such, the collaborative experience usually turns stale, given that the visual possibilities have all been exhausted. Thus, there is nothing more to do when every study of a typical subject has already been explored. However, in the case of a muse, where the variance of look does change significantly, there is always more to do, since every study of a muse has yet to be explored.

Variance of look is truly an uncommon blessing. It extends the range of visual possibilities for a photographer to explore in a subject. Seeing how beneficial it is, one must wonder why it is not more common. Essentially, it is an auspicious accident of form in which the subject’s visage is a well balanced blend of conventional and unconventional standards of aesthetics. Because of that, a subject blessed with this blend of standards does not fall into any defined preconception of archetypical representation, thus offering more visual possibilities..

This is why a photographer is free to explore the range of visual possibilities of a muse. It’s because there isn’t any preconception to favor either extremes of conventional or unconventional standards. Preconceptions like these are unavoidable, given that we are innately led by what we see and respond accordingly, by limiting the range of visual possibilities of the subject to a narrow definition of conventional or unconventional standards. But with a muse, we are at liberty to explore the range of visual possibilities, given the blend of standards.

Hawthorne District, Portland, Oregon - Leica M11 + Leica APO 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH-M. I edited out my shadow from the bottom right corner of the image.

Think typecasting. This is why supermodels never break into the movie business. They can only represent one kind of role, given that their look only conforms to conventional standards. In contrast, an actor like Tom Hanks or an actress like Meryl Streep are able to proliferate in the film business. They can represent more than one kind of role, given that their looks don’t conform to either conventional or unconventional standards. However, it should be noted that neither Mr. Hanks or Ms. Streep can be a muse either - or at least an ideal one.

What I explained above is why a subject of conventional standards, like a supermodel, can never be a muse - or at least one with inexhaustible visual possibilities. I did this indirectly by showing how Mr. Hanks and Ms. Streep have inexhaustible visual possibilities. That said, neither Mr. Hanks or Ms. Streep can be a muse, given that neither possess a blend of conventional and unconventional standards. Essentially, they look like regular people. But as we already know, that is not the case for a muse with that auspicious blend of standards.

That blend of conventional and unconventional standards is key to any muse. The look sets a muse apart from everyone else. How? Conventional standards draw the photographer’s eye to the muse while unconventional standards stop the photographer’s mind from typecasting the muse. In doing so, unconventional standards forces the mind to continually reexamine and reevaluate the look of the muse. Thus, it’s through this continual process of observation that the visual possibilities of a muse’s look becomes apparent to the photographer.

I know what you’re thinking. I’ve gone off the deep end overthinking what a muse is. Maybe, the explanation is simpler? Perhaps, a muse is really just a subject who has caught the attention of an artist. If that’s the case, the most important factors are a subject’s availability, willingness, and proximity. For a photographer what more is needed. That said, there must be more to being a muse than availability, willingness, and proximity. There has to be some material advantage to set a muse apart from any other subject - that je ne sais quoi quality.

In my opinion, that special something is what I have outlined in this blogpost. Beyond availability, willingness, and proximity, there is also that auspicious accident of form, resulting in a look that blends both conventional and unconventional standards. With that blend of standards from the subject, the range of visual possibilities mixed with the presence of visual attraction energizes the photographer. This motivates the photographer to be more involved in the creative and exploration process and invested in the duration of collaboration.

So to go back to Ms. Johansson and “Ghost in the Shell”, it is completely understandable why she was chosen for the role. She satisfies all the conditions of a muse. Whether she was a muse or not, only the director knows for sure. Personally, I am not a fan of Ms. Johansson. That said, I can see how her look can motivate a director to be more involved in the creative process. And, is that not the point? But, I digress. I can understand how an Asian would have wanted that role. But, I think the bigger question is whether the audience wanted that too.

This much I can say - Ms. Johansson, as a muse, did not appear to materially affect the director to produce a critically acclaimed box office success. From that perspective, one could argue that the white washed casting of Ms. Johansson was not justified. That said, the film fared much better in Japan.

Makes one wonder if the Japanese felt as strongly about Ms. Johansson’s casting.

Special thanks to Grace for joining me on this photowalk.

Disclaimer

Jul 18 Muse

Disclaimer

Jul 18 Muse

Aug 27 Boundaries

Jul 13 Quirkiness