TOPIC ESSAY QUESTION III

Essay 1c

Compare & Contrast – Mother Earth, Fertility, Love and More?

Instructions: Find and post the images of the artwork(s) mentioned in the Topic Essay Question.

Question: Describe the functional purpose of the Venus of Willendorf and the Venus De Milo. How is their imagery similar? How is it different? Find a third Venus example to compare these two to and describe why you selected it.

Part 1:

Summary: While answering this question, I was able to see how the two Venus statues, although from different time periods and cultures, have many similarities between them.

Reason: The reason this question was asked was so that we can explore how different cultures have similarities between them.

Purpose: The purpose this question was asked was so that we can understand what connections there are in different cultures, more specifically in their art.

Direction: I had a little bit of knowledge about these two Venus statues; however, by researching, I was able to gain a better understanding about them.

Impressions: I was surprised by the small amount of information there is about the Venus de Milo.

Part 2:

            The Venus of Willendorf and the Venus De Milo are depictions of Mother Earth and the goddess of Love, respectively. More importantly, however, they are depictions of a woman. Although these two statues are from different cultures and time periods, there are several similarities between them.

            The Venus of Willendorf, or Woman of Willendorf, is a statuette from Austria that dates back to the Upper Paleolithic period, about 24,000 BCE (Art History, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 6). This statuette has very large breasts, hips and stomach. “The sculptor exaggerated the figure’s female attributes…” (Art History, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 6). The exaggerated features, in addition to the visible vulva, signify that this figurine is a symbol of fertility. The well-nourished body that expresses the ability to bear strong children (Art History, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.6).

Source Link Venus of Willendorf

 

            There are several theories about this figurine’s purpose. Clive Gamble, an archeaologists believes that the figurines were a nonverbal form of communication among small isolated groups and that when groups of hunters gathered together they would be able to tell if the other groups were friendly (Art History, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.7). Leroy McDermott, however, believes that “the perspective was that of a pregnant woman looking down at her own body…[and] the figures were sculpted by pregnant woman and were depictions of their own bodies” (Art History, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p.7).

            Venus De Milo, also known as Aphrodite of Milos, was created between 130BCE and 100BCE, and stands at about 6 feet and 8 inches (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venus_de_Milo). “The figure has the heavier proportions of High Classical sculpture, but the twisting stance and the strong projection of the knee are typical of Hellenistic art” (Art History, M. Stokstad/M.W. Cothren, p. 156).

Source Link Venus De Milo

 

The Venus De Milo statue, unlike the Venus of Willendorf, is tall, slender and long-limbed, and does not seem to possess the body of someone who has given birth. The Venus of Willendorf has a large, well-nourished body that seems to suggest that it has given birth plenty of times. Another difference between these two statues is that the Venus of Willendorf is completely nude while the Venus de Milo is not.

Despite these differences, it is clear that the two statues share some similarities. They were created according to what their cultures believed was the ideal representation of a woman. In addition, these two statues have some sensuality. The Venus De Milo’s “juxtaposition of flesh and drapery, which seems to slip off the figure entirely, adds a note of erotic tension” (Art History, M. Stokstad/M/W. Cothren, p.156). The figurine of Venus of Willendorf, being only 4 3/8 inches tall, is perfect to be held in the palm of the hand. “As fingers are imagined gripping her rounded adipose masses, she becomes a remarkably sensuous object, her flesh seemingly yielding to the touch” (http://arthistoryresources.net/willendorf/willendorfwoman.html).

For the third Venus, I chose Venus Callipyge because this statue is so different from other works of arts that depict Venus. The statue, made from marble, is a Roman copy that dates to the late first century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Kallipygos). This statue depicts a woman raising her clothing and exposing her hips and buttocks. Like the other to Venus statues, this Venus also has sensuality. “The…statue’s pose draws further attention to the naked buttocks, and gives the figure a distinctly erotic aspect” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Kallipygos). The statue is also partially nude, like the Venus De Milo. However, unlike the other two Venus, this Venus does not have her breasts exposed. Also, the Venus Callipyge is willingly exposing her buttocks while it is believed that the Venus De Milo’s missing right hand held on to the sliding drapery to keep it from falling down (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venus_de_Milo).

Source Link Venus Callipyge

 

Since prehistoric times, women have been revered for their ability to conceive children and been held to a certain standard. They have been idealized, and statues have been carved to show what that ideal, or standard, is. The Venus statues show different views on what women should look like.