When I first viewed the Venus of Willendorf, without the outside influences of Witcombe, the voluptuous figure reminded me of femininity, and classic representations of fertility. Her buxom breasts and widened belly give the appearance of a woman who has previously given birth or is in the midst of pregnancy. Her genitals are quite noticeable and there is no face at all which also hints that this idol was specifically made to enhance or mark fertility.
Whitcombe assessed that classical views of Venus were of more "restrained" women, women who were strictly under the patriarchal power of that time period. The classical Venus has smaller breasts, less protruding buttocks, and a genital area that is not as obvious as the Willendorf. Thus, Willendorf must be viewed as a more unruly woman, for her genitals are enhanced. I do not necessarily agree with this interpretation (but I DO have minimal knowledge of Art History...). The socialistic views of beauty in the time of Willendorf may have been of a rather large woman, complete with buxom features... this does not mean she is "animalistic" . What make large breasts primitive and small breasts "refined" and under patriarchal control? In the renaissance periods women with less curvaceous bodies may have been preferred. His assumption is that women with or portrayed with smaller features must be under patriarchal control and women with larger features are more free but "primitive". I find this interpretation rather offensive, and misogynistic, but I am a woman... Whitcombe also makes the assessment that classical Venus' features are more feminine than buxom Willendorf. To me, this is very clashing with the idea that enhanced female genitals alludes to a greater femininity.
It is interesting that when Venus is viewed from the top of the head, she resembles. almost uncannily, the body of a mature and pregnant woman. When Venus is viewed forwardly, she has a very strange appearance. Her body does not appear obviously as an impregnated woman; the belly is too flat and not robust enough to allude to a child within. Since when this piece was made mirrors did not exist, it can be imaginable that a pregnant woman would not have a clear representation of herself from the front view therefore I find it an acceptable theory that the Venus was made by a pregnant woman herself. Which makes sense, who knows more about pregnancy than a woman has previously or is currently experiencing it?
The Venus of Willendorf is an interesting piece to study because so many people have different opinions of what her meaning was within her time period and what her meaning is to us and there is no way for anyone to know definitely without the written word.
Hi Jillian,
ReplyDeleteWhat you mentioned about a pregnant women had to of had sculpted the Venus of Willendorf, I thought was a brilliant conclusion. I never had put much thought around the idea of who could of done the sculpting. However, this may not be the right conclusion. Perhaps someone else could have easily done it, and the primitive features could have just been accentuated.
As for the time frame discussing the difference between the type of body that was ideal, primitive versus refined, I think that this is just the very beginning of what we still do today. Although there is not a strict and forceful rule that is established, we still set high and unrealistic standards, such as being thin. Do you agree that this is like a similar way of what society views each gender?
You're right: the Venus of Willendorf does not need to be viewed as an unruly woman (or a lazy, obese woman, for that matter). If we have that reaction to this work of art, I think it's important to realize that our reaction is constructed by our own cultural surroundings (and not because prehistoric people thought that way). We have no idea what prehistoric people thought about large buttocks or large breasts, do we?
ReplyDeleteThe prehistoric period is characterized by the fact that no writing existed (that's what "prehistoric" means: "pre-writing" or "pre-history"). For that reason, we'll probably never have a perfect knowledge of what prehistoric people thought. Plus, even if writing did exist, we would never be able to fully place ourselves in the mindset of a prehistoric person, simply because we are not from that period. We will never completely know what it was like (which is both a fascinating and discouraging thing for a historian to realize!).
-Prof. Bowen
Hey Jillian,
ReplyDeleteJust a few things I wanted to comment on was I totally agree that the view "His assumption is that women with or portrayed with smaller features must be under patriarchal control and women with larger features are more free but "primitive" is offensive. Even if it is one persons view of what the Venus means, I totally agree with you. Secondly I wanted to say that the understanding of the Venus of Willendorf for you is interesting. I like how you didn't believe what the article told you but came up with your own conclusions. For example when talking about how it would make sense if a pregnant woman or had been pregnant woman made the sculpture that they would know what they look like. But my question is do you think that society today feels the same way about women in the sense of being under control or not by seeing weight?
~Laura Offe
I like how you mentioned how different views of the Venus give you a different perspective. I didn’t notice that if you view her from the top she looks pregnant, but if you view her face-to-face then she looks obese. I think that’s neat how you noticed that because I didn’t even notice that until you mentioned it. Also, I like how you came up with the theory that maybe a pregnant woman carved her—I thought your reasoning as to why you think that made sense.
ReplyDeleteThere's a science fiction blog that suggests the "Venus" statuettes are representations of a eusocial species that existed prior to hominids. No feet or facial features (or skeletal remains) because of how the soft-bodied females evolved. I was wondering what you think.The blog is called Eusocial Failure
ReplyDeleteKYS
ReplyDelete