In the article about “Venus of WIllendorf” by Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe the statuette is referred to as a Venus. The term refers to goddess like attributes, sexual love and beauty. Sandro Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus” painting shows an example of a classic, tall curvaceous young woman concealing herself, a sexual Venus like goddess figure. Due to the Willendorf’s large unconcealed breasts, the obese size of her figure and the detail in her pubic area she could be described as “primitive” which makes the term Venus unsuitable for the “Venus of Willendorf”. Labeling the statuette Venus may hinder the viewer that the statuette is comparable to standards of idealized female art which she is far from. The “Venus of Willendorf” is beautiful in a sense that the woman is natural and unchanged to the perception of what a ‘beautiful’ woman should look like. Today, the term Venus is interchanged with the term woman which alters the way people perceive the figure. The “Woman of Willendorf” name change allows one to see her more as a human and less like a goddess, also allowing further interpretations.
It is interesting to talk of a statuette which we know little about because you can ponder the way it might have been used or viewed in the day and age when the Venus was created. The “Venus of Willendorf” was thought to have been a fertility idol. This was thought because the sculptor incorporated features needed only for conception and nurturing children. The sculptor left out features like her face and feet yet added much detail to her hair. The Venus’ hair consists of seven rows varying in size. The fact that there are seven rows is significant because years later seven was considered a magical number. Hair was viewed as a very erotic feature not because of length or color but more for the odor, which plays part in mating. It seems as if the sculptor added such detail to her hair to show a sexual significance. Because the woman has no feet she seems more likely to have been held in the hand rather than free standing or lying. The “Venus of Willendorf” is transformed into a sensuous object while being held, the woman’s body seems soft and flesh like.
The obese size of the woman raises a considerable amount of questions. Is this Oolitic limestone sculpted from a real Paleolithic woman? Does her size mean she had special treatment? Is this what all Paleolithic women looked like? We know from archaeologists Stone Age society survived from hunting and gathering. If this was indeed a real Stone Age woman she would have been unable to sustain foraging and gathering to survive. Her obese size could mean that she was superior and had people catering to her. We may never know the true intent for creating this small sculpture although we can admire her natural beauty.
Hi Taylor! I like that you highlighted how the term "Venus" forces the viewer to make comparisons between the prehistoric figurines and "idealized female art" produced by the ancient Greeks. I don't think it seems quite fair that the prehistoric figurines should always be judged on a basis of comparison to the Greeks. I think we should try to understand the prehistoric figurines on their own terms, at least as much as possibly can.
ReplyDelete-Prof. Bowen
You write about how later the name “Venus” was changed to Woman and I personally like that they did this, so the viewer would no longer have the pre-notations that this was to be an object of beauty in terms of classical beauty such as like you mention Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus”. So instead of considering the figurine a “Failed Venus” we can appreciate the beauty of this woman in her own time period as well as appreciate the skill it took to create this statuette. The article said the detail, such as the dimples in her elbows must have required a real woman to model this figure after. It also suggests that a woman also could have been the sculptor, and if so here is to the women and their talents so many years ago.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you call to attention that the artist only focused on the features of a woman that pertained to conception and the nurturing children. Among the features you included as notable was the scent of hair, which is something I found to be kind of interesting. When I think of the role scent plays in the modern dating scene its much different than the role it played in the pre-historic era. Every day billions of people use soaps, shampoos, perfumes, and colognes to hide or eradicate all together their own natural scent. Its interesting that in the pre-historic era scent was actually very important because of animalistic-instincts that help you to choose the best mate. So is this ability to smell a good partner, that will produce healthy offspring, still around or did that skill disappear all together?
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that we shared a common belief that it was a good thing to have the name changed to woman instead of venus, since I was also having a hard time not comparing the statuette to my idea of a greek venus. I was also intrigued at your depiction of the hair, and why you believed it was as detailed as the rest of the statuette while other features such as the face and feet were left out completely. I never considered it could be something that compared to the mating process. But now that you've pointed it out it seems fairly obvious that it very well may have been what the prehistoric artist intended when creating this piece.
ReplyDelete