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.
6 comments:
Nice thoughts, Amanda. I like your suggestion that scholars should start looking into getting more information instead of just worrying about semantics and a nickname. Ha ha!
If you're interested in seeing the armless, headless prehistoric figurine that Vibraye first nicknamed "Venus" (as a tongue-in-cheek comment), you can see it here.
He he, I love your last comment about them needing to spend more time on finding out about her, instead of fighting over what she should be called. I totally agree with that. I also agree with 'venus' not being an issue as a title for her. It certainly doesn't matter what so ever; especially if she was an image of beauty.
I definitely agree, the arguments between what this statue should be called seems beyond pointless to me. If we could collect more information like you suggested, I believe they would be able to settle upon a more mutual name when they compile what the symbolism behind this figure really is. Very well written blog response, I enjoyed the read.
I agree with thinking of the statuette as a healthy pregnant woman rather then a just fat woman. She seems almost more beautiful if you think of her in that way. I also agree that it is not really problematic calling her a Venus, because we have no idea how she was viewed in her era.
I agree with you that the name isn't the most important or influential aspect of the piece, however I have to argue that it effects how we view the statuette. By calling the piece Venus we are implying that the piece represents feminine qualities, and power. I know we all like to think that we see things objectively and such but perhaps the beauty we find in this piece has a little to do with the name. In a way I think it is good, even if I feel “Woman of Willendorf” would be a more objective and less assumptive name. I feel that by calling the piece Venus it triggers a reflective process in our minds. We have to question and re-frame the meaning of beauty, of “Venus”. For this purpose, I think that calling her the “Venus of Willendorf” makes this piece a bit more intriguing by implying that she is in a way a goddess.
Post a Comment