I think that the Willendorf Venus is an important historical find and because of that it should be used to look back on the past to try and help us get a better understanding of prehistoric human life.
The Willendorf Venus is from 24,000 to 22,000 BCE. and despite how ancient it is, it is carved very well and in some areas it has incredible detail. When looking at the shape of the woman you can feel a softness to it, despite it being made out of stone. This is something that I find very uncommon in statues, and seeing it done this well, so far back in time, just brings a smile to my face. The different areas on the stone have been emphasized so well that you can easily tell that it is a figure of either a pregnant or heavily set woman.
Now whether this figure was used as a doll, a fertility idol, a sexual object, or as a teaching tool for women, I have no idea. Out of those options though I would like to be able to see it as either a fertility idol or as a teaching tool for women when it comes to changes in their body. I also like the idea of it being an idol that displays an ideal healthy fertile/pregnant woman, rather than just a fat woman as the writer of the article put it. Not that it has to be that, or that it is that, but if there were to ever be more information found in regards to this idol (and to the other idols) then that is what I would be hoping for.
As for the term Venus, to answer one of the suggested question, it was first used to identify this carved figure because its discoverer, the Marquis Paul de Vibraye, had mockingly named it “immodest Venus” after a Classical Venus statue called the “modest Venus.” He did this because the female in the “modest Venus” tries to cover her breasts and pubic area, while the Willendorf Venus does no such thing. And in fact the statue emphasizes both of these regions of the female body, while diminishing all of the others. Except for the amazing detail in the braids where her head and face would be.
I don't really see how this term is problematic, however in the article it does talk about how the term Venus disconnects us from being able to relate to her as a human being. And that it will only make us think of her as a goddess or idol.
The reason why I do not see this term as problematic is because we do not know what she really is. If she is just a regular woman that someone carved into store, or if she was some sort of fertility/and or sexual idol. If that is the case then I see no point in not connecting her to other Venus idols throughout human history. If anything that just shows how culture has evolved over thousands of years in regards to what humans see as desirable when it comes to women and fertility.
Either way it still shows us a desired form of women in the past, and basically what I'm trying to say is in this is that I do not believe it should be something that people should spend time arguing about. They should spend their time trying to collect more information on it, if possible.
