Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Venus of Willendorf


The Venus of Willendorf is such an important work of art not only because it is a prehistoric treasure, but because it is so intriguing. I’m curious why the artist chose a model with such an unattractive shape. I feel that it implies that she was important to him/her in some way or another.
I accept Witcombe’s idea that perhaps civilization back then was dominated by female power, but as time progressed, men took the lead in society. Perhaps she was Mother Earth as Witcombe's article proposes.  Maybe the artist was so infatuated with this uncommonly voluptuous woman that he/she wanted to recreate her. This Venus is exposed without a face, or feet, but is presented with the most detail in her torso and pelvis. The fact that she is obviously over-weight must have made her stand out from other women then. Although, if she had such a status that allowed her to eat and have others fetch her food, her face would be just as important as the rest of her body. Perhaps the fat tells it all.
I believe that this statuette was created from a live model and I also find this piece very alluring. As an artist, I am so fascinated with the female body; any nude woman is beautiful. One thing that I love about this work is that despite her size, she has a sense of confidence in her sexual appeal. The way her unrealistically thin arms are carelessly draped over her large breasts and her thick thighs pressed together. Her pelvic region is so detailed that you can see the definition of her labia, but she shows no shame in revealing herself. 
This statuette was given the name “Venus” with a bit of sarcasm because she is the exact opposite of the classical Venus character. The classic Venus like that portrayed in the renaissance era is slender, and seems embarrassed to expose her naked self. Also, The Venus of Willendorf shows more detail in the sensual areas of her body. For example, her pelvic area is extremely detailed, her buttocks are large but not shapely and round, and her breasts are much larger yet not sagging. I think that the Venus of the modern era is a bit more conservative mainly because of religion. We are told that to be naked in front of one another is immoral and therefore, an adulterous sin. We wear clothing to keep ourselves warm and protect our bodies from various environmental factors, but have we always been required to wear clothing? Centuries ago, when hunters and gatherers scavenged the earth, I don’t think they felt any shame in nakedness. It probably seemed natural then, whereas in today’s society, we drape ourselves with fashionable clothing, and make ourselves look more attractive with material things. Honestly, if it weren’t illegal or immoral in America, I would walk around naked. Venus of Willendorf doesn’t need these things to flaunt her appeal. However, giving this figure such a name that creates the expectation of seeing a certain image that is completely different than what is really there might have been a bad idea. It is almost taken as a joke, which I think ruins the piece as a whole.






3 comments:

  1. Hello Brooke! I really enjoyed reading your thoughts and ideas about Venus of Willendorf. I think that you have made a few very good points when it comes to why Venus was created. I too feel that if she were an important figure in her time, then she would have been given a very detailed face. It seems like most women rulers or important figures have detailed paintings or statues created of themselves. I really also like how you point out the confidence that Venus has with her body. In the article they talk about her appearing masculine and dominant but I feel that you chose the right word: confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Brooke! Your viewpoint about religion and nudity today is interesting, especially when you think about how many scholars interpret the nudity (and sexual characteristics) of the prehistoric Venus as being related to some type of religious/fertility ritual. In other words, some some scholars say: religion today = clothing; prehistoric religion = nudity. Why should we connect nudity with prehistoric religious beliefs? Perhaps because we really are trying to make a statement about ourselves and how we are different (and our belief systems are different) from our prehistoric ancestors.

    Or perhaps we have this mindset because we are interested in interpreting history on the basis of evolution and improvement. Witcombe discusses how evolution was a new theory in the 19th century (thanks to Darwin's "Origin of Species" from 1859). 19th century scholars seemed to tie this idea of evolution into their conclusion that prehistoric society was matriarchal. Basically, these scholars were implying that society had evolved (up until the 19th century) to a more advanced, patriarchal society. (Can you see how this matriarchal interpretation can be considered a negative interpretation on prehistoric society? Scholars were thinking that prehistoric people weren't smart enough to have created a patriarchal society.)

    Anyhow, to bring things full circle: I wonder if the connection with nudity and prehistoric religion is still tied to this evolutionist belief. Maybe we are just insisting that nudity was connected with fertility and religion because we want to suggest that we are more "evolved" than our prehistoric ancestors. What silliness!

    -Prof. Bowen

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're right about the face. I think if the model herself was significant to the society, they would have made an attempt at recreating her face.

    ReplyDelete