The small statue known as the "Woman of Willendorf" was created ca. 28,000-25,000 BCE. Because we have no idea about the function of this statuette or precisely what it was meant to represent, it is easy to project our own conceptions of the body onto its form, as the funny cut-out sheet of outfits shown here demonstrates. Yet even if we don't know much if anything about its history, we can still consider it as an object. According to your reading in Janson, we might be able to see the beginnings of an interest of abstraction in the figure. How would you argue for or against this understanding of the sculpture as "abstract" beyond what Janson suggests?
NOTE: some of you may have been introduced to this work previously under the title "The Venus of Willendorf" (the title that appears in the still cut-out outfit image above). Discoverers of this sculpture first associated her with the ancient goddess Venus because of the emphasis on the fertile body, but it is anachronistic and somewhat misleading to do so. Venus was a goddess of Greco-Roman antiquity and was not a part of Paleolithic culture! That is why we now call her simply "Woman of Willendorf."
The statue's features are certainly exaggerated (the outfits humorously satirize this), however the reason behind the "abstracted" features remains largely a mystery. Janson suggests that the figure is a representation of fertility, or a venus because her face is "abstracted" to emphasize her reproductive features. I would agree with Janson's interpretations because the abstraction of the face removes her individual identity, causing her to become a larger symbol of the female form, and the capacity to reproduce.
ReplyDeleteGreat point about the abstracted face of the Willendorf woman! This is important to the potential interpretation of the figure of universal as opposed to representing a specific individual.
DeleteI also think that the Woman of Willendorf is an abstract statue. I agree with Grace in that by removing the facial features this sculpture is made universal. Furthermore, the detail of her hair or headdress might also go to the universality of this piece because perhaps many Paleolithic women wore their hear that way. And by looking at this piece through a modern lens, the textured longer hair further emphasizes that this statue is female--just like the emphasis on the reproductive parts. However, by satirizing the statue with different outfits, the Woman of Willendorf is no longer an abstraction but instead is a more naturalistic statue of an obese or pregnant Paleolithic woman.
ReplyDeleteVery well said -- the cut-outs do treat the body as an individual to be dressed rather than as a conceptual embodiment of fertility or womanhood.
DeleteJanson suggests three reasons for the sculpture; a specific person, an ideal person, a symbol, and representation of a woman's view of her body. Looking at the abstract features of the body, I would argue that the statue stands as a symbol of fertility. The creator made sure to show no facial features to direct the eyes to the bulging body. She has wide hips, a protruding belly, no arms, large breasts, and exaggerated genitalia, which are all signs of reproduction. But its size allows the statue to be a handheld object. The portability of the object implies a larger purpose; it could have served as an amulet that brought reproductive powers to the owner.
ReplyDeleteNice emphasis on the importance of considering scale in interpreting this object's meaning
DeleteIt's interesting to me that the Woman of Willendorf is thought to maybe be a depiction of feminine fertility (which is often normalized in Western culture to simply be all fertility) but in all the Paleolithic art we've seen there is no male counterpart/depiction of fertility. Even in Egyptian art there is a pregnant male god (mentioned in Janson's). I suppose we must beware reading into such a sculpture and imposing our own views but I still find it interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the female form is far more common as a symbol of fertility than the male counterpart across time, which makes sense given the longstanding perception of women -- until very recent history -- as child-bearers first and foremost. However, there are exceptions like the ancient god Priapus, whose role as symbol of fertility is emphasized by his portrayal with an oversized male member!
DeleteI also think that the Woman of Willendorf is an abstract statue. As stated in other comments, the size of the reproductive features are highly exaggerated in order to emphasize the importance of fertility. Due to the stress on fertility and the small size of the statue, the assumption can be made that perhaps this statue was a good luck charm used to ensure fertility and successful childbirth. Another feature that supports the idea of the good luck charm is the style of the hair. The hair appears to be braided into seven circles. Furthermore, the number seven was believed to be lucky in later times.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find striking about this piece, is its depiction of the female body; it opens up a conversation about the piece in a larger historical context, as the female body is a prominent feature of artwork throughout history. Upon first viewing the piece the voluptuous curves (large breasts and childbearing hips) make it instantly recognizable as the female figure—and it is a rather iconic one, at that. If we compare it to other iconic female figures, such as the voluptuous women of Rubens, the woman of willendorf seems plain and unadorned. However, unlike the refined women of Rubens, it is this plainness—this simplicity—that makes this piece so beautiful. It is a depiction of a woman simplified to its essential form.
ReplyDelete