For a book that is all about sticking up for muses, this book really does some of them (and some artists) dirty.
Muse: Uncovering the Hidden Figures Behind Art History's Masterpices by Ruth Millington is all about giving voice and agency to muses, who are traditionally assigned a passive role as subjects in art.
Firstly I don't think the book's definition of "muse" is particularly coherent or well-explored. For instance, I can't help but think that 1. a hired artist's model 2. a patron paying for a portrait 3. a muse are three distinctly separate things. I also don't think that "muse" is a great word to describe long-term artistic collaborations like between Marina Abramovic and Ulay, nor is the concept of "self as muse" very coherent to me. So we are on rocky footing from the jump.
But the real trouble comes because the book tries to be progressive but in many ways is regressive. For instance, framing all of Artemesia Gentileschi's artwork as being about "reclaiming her body" in a vaguely feminist but reductive way (even when the chapter prints Gentileschi's own words about wanting the art to stand on its own.)
In the chapter about Fukase Masahisa we get a frustratingly vague sentence about his wife and muse Yoko Waibe, "In 1976, Yoko left Fukase and the couple divorced," ignoring the violent circumstances that she left under. He chased her with a knife! If you're going to write a book defending muses, do you not think that that is relevant?
Or how about this delightful quote about Frida Kahlo? "Kahlo's fifty-five known self-portraits undoubtedly illustrate her narcissistic personality disorder..." Nevermind that the "diagnosis" comes from a doctor who never met Kahlo and only was asked his opinion after her death, that sentence is *staggeringly* inappropriate and Millington should be ashamed. Is it something you'd write about a man's self portraits? About Rembrandt? Get real.
Finally, and most pettily, the book has some historical inaccuracies that I am aware of, which makes me wary of the rest of it because I'm sure there are more that I just didn't notice. For example, discussing how "Since the Renaissance, artists have enlisted the help of studio assistants not only in the preparation of materials, but in the process of creating artworks." It's a lot older than the Renaissance, how else do you think artists got their training?
The book is not all bad. It's refreshingly diverse across race and gender, both for artists and muses, and most of the writing is competent. But for a book that ends with a preachy manifesto for the ethical treatment of muses (a sort of PETM if you will), I don't think it's earned it.