Venus of Willendorf is the earliest famous image of a woman. It was found in Austria in 1908 by the archaeologist Josef Szombathy. The statuette was carved from fine porous oolitic limestone. It is very curvy with a protruding stomach and very large breasts and buttocks. Her older age and pronounced female forms made her an item of prehistoric art. Although the statuette is a female, the fact that her feet and arms are missing and there is no defined face, doesn't really make her a woman.
Ever since Venus of Willendorf was found, the name ''Venus" has become a term that described all obese Palaeolithic statuette's of women. Classical "Venus", on the contrary, stands for a beautiful young and nude goddess of love, sex, and beauty. Classical "Venus's" form,with smaller breasts and not such curvy buttocks and stomach, and sexuality are treated with a high degree of civilized restraint. Venus of Willendorf's figure is exactly the opposite and give it the uncivilized, primitive look.
Today, in many books the name ''Venus'' is substituted by the name ''Woman''. This change was name as if to remove the title of a goddess from the figurine and think of her more like of a human. The lack of a face also suggests that she be seen not as a personality, but rather as a sexual object.
The fact that the statue is also really fat, implies that she was not a woman of Stone Age, because those women would not have had the chance to get that fat from all the work that they did. Venus of Willendorf seems like she was waited on and had her work done by others so that is why she became obese from the lack of movement and excessive intake of fats. Also, the great emphasis on the statuettes vulva and the red ochre that could represent blood, suggest that she served some purpose in connection with female menstruation and a sign of fertility for women. This also increases the chances that the statuette was more likely caved by another female.
Hi Lesya! I think it's interesting that you feel like the statuette is female, but yet doesn't constitute a "woman." I'd be interested to know more of your opinion for what defines a "woman." Do you think that a "woman" is an individual person? If so, I think I know what you mean. Since the face on this figurine is missing, I can see how this figurine does not represent an individual.
ReplyDelete-Prof. Bowen
I really can't understand how you can claim to write about art history and at the same time not talk about how the probable views they were assumed to have had on the human body at the time it was made. Throughout history the ideals of the human shape has always been that what's been impossible for the mass and only for a priviliged few. The time when everyone had to work outdoors and unavoidably get tanned, the ideal was white skin. In times when all had to work hard and was skinny, the ideal was that of really big people that didn't have to work hard. TODAY the ideal is also impossible. Actually impossible for all, but they've found an unnatural way instead. You're supposed to be skinny with little bodyfat that makes big lips, breasts and buttocks impossible. Still you are supposed to have theese curves. Impossible for all but a few, that can afford surgery. Absolutely insane ideal! It's also very unprofessional to put your own view of what's beautiful or not by saying that she is the opposite of the classical "beautiful" Venus. Beauty lies in the beholders eyes, and are not to be ridiculed by "know-it-all's" that lack imagination! By the way, you can't have taken a very long look at her, only a peak? For me, a both very artistic, musical and intelligent person with a flexible mind it's obvious that she is resting her arms on the top of her breasts and are not missing at all!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReply accidentally published twice, deleted one.
DeleteComment; I wrote "the human shape", meant off course appearance.