Week #2: Prehistoric Art: "Venus of Willendorf"

Venus of Willendorf

c. 24,000-22,000 BCE

Oolitic limestone

43/8 inches (11.1 cm) high

(Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna)Venus of Willendorf)

Discovered in Austria by Josef Szombathy in about 1908, the statue was regarded "As the earliest known representation, she became the "first woman," acquiring a sort of Ur-Eve identity that focused suitably […] on the fascinating reality of the female body."

The name “Venus” was used in an ‘ironic and mocking’ way.  The “Venus of Willendorf” makes no attempts to hide her breasts or pubic area, which, at the time she was discovered would be considered immodest.  In being named “Venus” she is compared to Roman statues portraying a more lithe body structure, one which is seen as closer to “ideal” in modern society.  The statue is the opposite of the “tall, erotically curvaceous, nude young woman whose primary identity, as every heterosexual male recognizes, resides in her physical and sexual body.”  She is plump, perhaps short, her breasts are large and weighed down by their virility, perhaps suggesting that she has birthed many children and also nourished their bodies with her own. 

The term “Venus” is problematic in that it implies that this body is female.  That simply by having breasts and female genitalia, the statue shows femininity.  

As Witcombe states at the end of the second section, this statue is “visibly biologically feminine, but she is not feminine; the name “Venus” imposes up[on] her a gendered femininity that she does not have.”  A Western, patriarchical point of view tells us that simply by being biologically female, obviously that person is feminine; however, society and culture define femininity, not genitalia.  It is unfair to the statue and the maker to imply that there is any femininity in this statue because to our Western eyes, of course it does, but to a different culture it may be seen differently. 

In regard to how the figure is supposed to be displayed or used, Witcombe describes it as being something meant to be held in the hand: “As fingers are imagined gripping her rounded adipose masses, she becomes a remarkably sensuous object, her flesh seemingly soft and yielding to the touch.”  The ideal beauty in American culture is not fat, she does not have large, heavy breasts or a belly of size.  The ideal beauty in the United States is not a person of size or even proud of what size she is.  The ideal beauty is subservient, quiet, beautiful, thin, and tan.  Her breasts ought to be proportionate to her derriere, or she simply won’t be beautiful.  Almost every woman in American society believe her body to be wrong in one way or another; too fat, too thin, breasts that are too small, butt that is too large, nose too crooked. 

It is interesting to note that unless there was a model for the sculptor to look at while completing this figurine, the artists might not have been able to even make one that looks at least somewhat accurate.  I also wonder who carved the statue.  Was it a medicine man or medicine woman trying to help a woman conceive a child?  Is the statue meant as a visual aid for the Earth Goddess?  If it is a statue of the Goddess, was it then carved by a Priestess or simply someone who wanted to be closer to their deity?  There is really no indication that the statue is divine in nature, though, which is why some scholars have chosen to use the word “Woman” instead of “Venus.”  Scholars want to demystify this statue and allow people to think of her in broader terms. 

Part of me wonders if those people are haters of the fat body.  As a fat woman, I actually identify, at least a little, with this statue.  It more closely resembles my body than most of my peers’ bodies and I think for me it is easier to believe that this statue is of the ideal prehistoric woman, or at least a “famous” prehistoric woman.  I think of it in those terms because I am also aware of fan art.  I cannot imagine a world without fan art and perhaps this statue, and others like it across the European and Asian continents were fan art.  That idea could also extend to the Goddess idea. 

Finally, why do we speak of a statue which we really know nothing about?  Why is this statue important to the art world?  Mostly we speak of it because it is a significant find in terms of anthropological studies, but why do we look at it as art?  Is it art? Or it is a token, or a tool?  Perhaps then we must wonder what we think of as art.  Did the maker of this statue think of it as art?  Did the painters of the caves in France think they were making art, or were they making a record of what their tribe had accomplished? 

As a maker myself, I think of my work as art.  I think that perhaps the person who carved this figurine made it for a purpose, but also as art.  It may have been carved far from where it was found and was bartered for and somehow found its way to what would one day be named Willendorf, Austria.  

______
Witcombe, Christopher L.C. E. Venus of Willendorf. Art History Resources. 2005. http://arthistoryresources.net/willendorf/