Sculptures of the past provide us in the modern day a narrative of cultural experience through three dimensional physical representations of certain cultural standards, stories, and visions. A sculpture’s style can tell us what civilization created or who specifically crafted it, the material can tell us from what and where it was made, and each subject, most importantly, can provide for us insight on why it was made. Earliest three dimensional sculptures, like the Venus of Willendorf, date back as far as the beginning of art itself. A progression in materials and knowledge led to the height of sculpture during the Classical period of Greek and Roman antiquity led to such masterpieces as The Laocoon and His Two Sons, and are profound influences on more recent pieces like Donatello’s Equestrian Monument to Erasmo da Narni. For much of recorded and deciphered history, the male figure has been the most respected and prized form to which art and sculpture could be dedicated. Heroes of war were memorialized and leaders of country such as pharaohs and emperors demanded countless monumental statues to be created in their likeness to be regarded eternally. But male figures didn’t account for every piece. Female figures were carved by every culture that had a say in art, beginning as symbols of fertility for the human race and eventually cut into modern standards of beauty. Two figures worthy of further close examination are the ancient piece, the aforementioned Venus of Willendorf (Woman of Willendorf), and from the Classical Period, Praxiteles’ masterpiece, Aphrodite of Knidos.
The two figures have much in common; most obviously they are both female representations and both are quite nude. Many culture’s artists either did not have the talent to carve a complete three dimensional sculpture or were just fond of only frontal and peripheral views as sculptors from the Old Kingdom of Egypt gave us the slate statue of Menkhaure and Khamerenbty, a sculpture whose physical back is solely a flat rock surface. Our two pieces under study, in contrast, are fully three dimensional, sculptures in the round, meant to be admired equally from any angle in which a viewer pleases: Front, back, side, looking down on it, or any other angle. Each piece has a carefully crafted head of hair (or possibly headdress in the case of the Venus of Willendorf) probably to the latest style of their respective culture. They have both endured the wrath of nature and the clumsiness of mankind to last for thousands of years to come out as priceless symbols of history and art. The most meaningful characteristic of each work of art lies not in their physical description but behind the purpose of the work, the influence that sparked the first cut of each piece. In order to accomplish that, each sculpture deserves to be studied for its unique properties.
The Venus of Willendorf (Venus), was discovered in 1908 during an excavation near the city of Krems in Austria. It is estimated to have been carved out of oolitic limestone during the Paleolithic Period somewhere between24,000-22,000 BC. Very little is known about the history of the sculpture. It is unknown what culture created it, nevermind its individual artist. It is arguable whether she represents a goddess, served as a symbolic ideal for what was desired in a woman at the time, or was an actual portrait of a woman. The lack of facial features drives the argument that she was solely a symbol of sexual fertility; it was not her face, but her body that was important. This is a feature of all Paleolithic “Venus” figurines. Standing no more than 4.5” tall the robust woman probably served more as a token for one to carry and is best described by Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe:
The sculpture shows a woman with a large stomach that overhangs but does not hide her pubic area. A roll of fat extends around her middle, joining with large but rather flat buttocks… Her thighs are also large and pressed together down to the knees. Her forearms, however, are thin, and are shown draped over and holding, with cursorily indicated fingers, the upper part of her large breasts. Small markings on her wrists seem to indicate the presence of bracelets. Her breasts are full and appear soft, but they are not sagging and pendulous. The nipples are not indicated.Her genital area would appear to have been deliberately emphasized with the labia of the vulva carefully detailed and made clearly visible, perhaps unnaturally so, and as if she
had no pubic hair.
had no pubic hair.
Now conscious of the likelihood of prehistoric Homo sapiens not having the adequate, consistent caloric intake to become so large and endowed with fat, the Venus’ proportions are exaggerated but remain a remarkably realistic representation of a very large woman.
Praxiteles was the most important sculptor of his time during the Classical Period of Greek history, an era of remarkable accomplishments in art. At a time when men’s bodies and minds were the regarded as the epitome of strength and beauty, women were looked down upon as being simply a necessity in order to conceive life to (hopefully) more males. They were considered solely as vessels to hold children, often equated with other forms of vessels like a vase or a tub to hold water. Men were the Olympians, the soldiers, the crafters, and the geniuses who created and became the highest standard of attraction. A shift in this belief can be traced back to a single piece of art, Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Knidos. Originally casted in bronze around 350 BC, what we have today is a composite of two copies made of marble by the Romans. It is fully deserving of the description of “ekphrasis” which is a Greek term that means a “description of a work of visual art, often saying that the work is so masterful that it truly seems alive.” Aphrodite, born of the sea of Paphos, was the Greek goddess of love, beauty, and sexuality. Created so lifelike and sexually stimulating there is a story of a young man who secreted himself in attempt to fornicate with the statue after sneaking in to the basement where the piece was being stored. The statue is roughly that of human proportion standing about 5’6”. Unlike the Venus sculpture, Aphrodite’s face is fully considered and stands on two feet in a cantropasto pose, her weight shifted onto her right foot, and is reaching for a towel after her ritual bath that restores her purity. What brings to life and encapsulates the viewer’s attention is the state of mind of the figure. She seems to have been caught by an intruder during her private moment and is picking up her towel to cover herself with her left hand while gently covering her privates with her right hand. Her face is caught in a mild state of alarm while somehow being quietly amused at the same time. This pose and these features lead the viewer to believe that he or she is the intruder themselves. This monumental piece of artwork was the first Greek piece of art to fully exploit the female body and arise it to a standard of beauty from the previous place of “vessel.” After more and more artists viewed the sculpture over time their pieces gradually focused on the female body as the desired object of sexuality. Originally made as a cult image for a seaside shrine to the Goddess Aphrodite, it was rejected by many city-states of ancient Greece for it being too risqué and dangerously indecent to the public until it was finally commissioned by the city of Kos where it was heralded as a masterpiece.
After reviewing two ancient, popular pieces of sculpture of the ancient worlds there is a little insight on the beliefs and position on women and sexuality of each culture. The Venus of Willendorf provokes a curious nerve that leads us to explore more of the Paleolithic ideas and standards of women despite it not representing popular women’s standard of beauty today. Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Knidos marks a shift in the global standard of beauty from the male body to the female body. It is also apparent the care and attention each sculptor paid to each piece by simply looking at the physical features of each woman from the hair, to the midsection, down to the feet, or in the Venus’ case lack of feet. The three dimensionality of both works of art allows the viewer to admire it from any angle and their proportions and liveliness are timeless to any culture lucky enough to appreciate and interpret for themselves their true meaning and influence.
Sources
Reeder, Ellen D., Pandora: Women in Classical Greece Wallers Art Gallery, Baltimore, MD (1995)
Hersey, George L., Falling in Love with Statues: Artificial Humans from Pygmalian to the Present University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London (2009)
Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org
Witcombe L.C.E., Christopher Women in Pre History: The Woman of Willendorf, http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfwoman.html
