Posts
The “Venus of Willendorf” was first discovered in 1908 in Austria dates back to a prehistoric culture set between 24,000-22,000 (Witcombe 1). The sculpture which is made of limestone appears to have been brought t to the area suggesting that it was carried by a hunter/gatherer nomadic people. There seems to be many logical theories to the purpose of the “Venus of Willendorf” and a clear bias is also apparent when it comes to the use of the term ‘Venus’ in the name.
I believe this figure represents not only something symbolically to the ones who carried it but also a change in viewpoint on which is considered natural. This figure brings up a good example that allows us to compare and think about what the ideal or normal woman form looked like. It dives into prehistoric culture, giving us pierces of information to try to make assumptions about regarding how cultures acted and valued.
It appears that the term Venus was actually used to view the figure in a negative light by its discoverers ( Witcombe 2). Most people who hear the word Venus think of Greek or Roman statues which represent the perfect feminine classical form. The problem with this title is that it provides a presumption to viewers of this figure. I think that people would rather compare the “Venus of Willendorf” to the classical representations of the word rather than look at the figure as a separate piece which represents a separate culture’s values.
The article seems to define beauty as it related to femininity and the female figure form. It seems to use the classical Venus form to describe society’s viewpoint of what is beautiful. The problem with this is that beauty on these terms is described by a surface level viewpoint. Modern day values seem to relate beauty a mythical standard of perfection which is surface level. I think that the “Venus of Willendorf” should not be unfairly compared to this, because of two things. First, the culture which it was created in, may have had different standards of beauty, so judging it based on modern standards may or may not be unfair to its original purpose. Secondly, the purpose of the figure is still unknown. The article provides many suggestions to the purpose of the figure; from being based off of a real person, to being a fertility idol and even being a representation of a earth mother (Witcombe 4).
Although reading the article does not make it clear what the purpose of the figure is, it does provide a good story behind its naming. Taking into account the different theories presented in the article, I would like to think that figure represents something with relation as a symbolic idol carried to represent female fertility. The great thing about the rarity of this type of figure is that It provides a small glimpse into the culture but leaves some questions up for us to speculate about.
