Essay #1c Compare and Contrast

 

PART I

ESSAY #1c

ESSAY TITLE: Compare and Contrast

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 and contrast these two to and describe why you selected it.

SUMMARY: I was excited to answer this question as I had thought about it for awhile and had many ideas. It took me a little bit of time to choose my own Venus to compare to the question's two but I ended up happy with the one I chose. The only problem I encountered while writing this essay was my lack of citations from the course text as there was very limited information on the Venus De Milo and Venus of Willendorf.

REASON: This question was probably conducted as a lesson in making the correct choices on what subject I would be best suited to explore in my essay.

PURPOSE: I would imagine that this question's purpose was to make me explore the role of women throughout a wide span of ancient history. 

DIRECTION: Most of my work was conducted using articles online. I had a bit of an issue finding information in the book that wasn't repetitive. I utilized information from science articles as well as museum and history websites. 

IMPRESSIONS: It was most interesting reading about the science behind why theVenus De Milo is the ideal woman and why the human brain is attracted to women of similar proportions. Apart from that, it was eye opening to learn of the correlations between sculpture spanning such a long period of time. 

PART II

ANSWER:

            It is not difficult to find a correlation between any, if not all Venus artworks. The first word that comes to mind when viewing all of these pieces is very obviously “femininity”. But is that all there is to it? Upon studying sculptures such asVenus of Willendorf and the Venus De Milo, I have discovered that while they were associated with womanhood during their perspective first lives, they also carried alongside them a deeper symbol of luck, beauty, or fertility.  

(http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Cave-Art-Debate.html#

Venus of Hohle Fels, Mammoth Ivory,  Early Aurignacian, 35 000 and 40 000 years old)

            I decided to start right at the very beginning. A piece uncovered just a mere 4 years ago in Germany, the Venus of Hohle Fels is the oldest example of figurative art at 40,000 years old. Not only does this particular Venus change our views of the skill level and brain development of the people of it’s time, but it is also shows us how they viewed their women. One source states that “from the exaggerated sexual features, the 6-centimetre-high figurine might have been a fertility symbol” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17121-ivory-venus-is-first-depiction-of-a-woman.html). As you can see in the photo, the Venus of Hohle Felswas crafted with bulging thighs and waist, it’s breast and genitalia exaggerated and it lacks features such as a face and feet. These body parts were most likely unimportant in the creation of this piece because they do not relate to fertility. Unfortunately, not much else is known of this newly found figurine.

(http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.data.image.v/v136200a.jpg

Venus of Willendorf, Limestone and Red Ochre, Unknown Origin, 24,000 B.C.E – 22,000 B.C.E.)

            Like the Venus of Hehle Fels, the Venus of Willendorf possesses many of the same features and therefore, it is surprising to learn that this sculpture was made 16,000 years later in 24,000 BCE.  This figurine was sculpted with big breasts, a large belly with a deep navel, wide hips, dimpled buttocks and knees, and strong thighs (Course Text, Chapter 1, Pg. 6). Made from Limestone and found in Austria, this Venus sheds some light on the purpose of it’s ancestor the Venus of Hehle Fels.

             Even more interesting is the idea that the Venus of Willendorf may haveserved a deeper purpose. There have been multiple theories on this subject. Clive Gamble, an archeologist suggested “these little sculptures were subtle forms of nonverbal communication among small isolated groups of Paleolithic people spread out across vast regions” (Course Text, Chapter 1, Pg. 1-2) The Venus displayed  a well nourished and therefore healthy and fertile women. “As symbols, these figures would have provided reassurance of shared values about the body” (Course Text, Chapter 1, Pg. 2). Though this theory seems entirely possible, I found It’s size to be even more intriguing. At only 4 3/8”, The Venus of Willlendorf  is said to have served as a good luck charm. “Its diminutive size led archaeologists to assume that it may have been carried by the men during their hunting missions in which it served not only as a reminder of their mate back at home but also as a charm to bring them success in their hunting” (http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/world/Willendorf.html). These ideas tie both Venuses together in a way that while Venus of Hehle Fels could have quite possibly been simply a symbol of health and fertility, it may have been our ancestor’s rabbit’s foot.

(http://www.artchive.com/artchive/g/greek/venus_de_milo.jpg

Venus De Milo, Marble, Alexandros of Antioch, 130 - 100 BCE)

            Delving much further past these ancient, tiny figurines, the Greek’s Venus De Milo was erected between 130 and 100 BCE. Sculpted of marble and almost life size at 6’8”, this statue is an icon of Aphrodite of Melos, the Greek goddess of love and beauty. Though this piece of work is much younger than the two previous Venuses I explored, it is easy to see a pattern. Aphrodite shows a perfectly symmetrical body with heaving hips and perfect long torso. “The juxtaposition of soft flesh and crisp drapery, seemingly in the process of slipping off the figure, adds a note of erotic tension” (Course Text, Chapter 5, Pg. 4). The Venus De Milo, even many years younger than the Venus of Hehle Fels and the Venus of Willendorf, presents the same idea of fertility, sex and beauty.

             

(http://pics.wikifeet.com/Rita-Hayworth-Feet-366612.jpg
Rita Hayworth)

        While this Venus may not serve as a good luck charm, it does provoke an interesting science. During my research, I stumbled upon an article written by plastic surgeons, Peter Aldea and Patricia L. Eby of Cosmetic Surgery Specialists of Memphis. They composed a study which compared the Venus De Milo’s waist to hip ratio (WHR) to that of some of the most famous women in the world. They refer to the Venus as “the gold standard for classic beauty” (http://www.cosmeticsurgeryspecialists.org/beauty.html). Her WHR is a perfect 0.7. “Rita Hayworth, Jennifer Lopez, Tyra Banks, Kate Moss and Eva Longoria have in common a WHR of 0.67. Lana Turner and Naomi Campbell had a WHR of 0.68. Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren shared a WHR of 0.63” (http://www.cosmeticsurgeryspecialists.org/beauty.html).  

(http://www.gossipcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/EvaLongoria_325_long.jpg

Eva Longoria)

           On top of this, research has been performed on women with varied WTH ratios and the findings are that women nearing the Venus’s perfect 0.7 generally produce more estrogen, are more fertile, carry less disease and even have smarter children. These facts certainly make you wonder. The Greeks knew what they had when they created their Venus: an Icon of feminine perfection.

            These are only a few examples of Venus figures. If I had the ability to explore them all, I would most certainly find that there are more similarities than differences among them, beauty and fertility being the most common theme. Being the oldest of the three I explored, The Venus of Hehle Fels seemed the most interesting to me, when in fact the entire evolution of getting from her to the younger Venus De Milo opened my eyes. From symbols of fertility to charms and icons of perfection, now I see that people from all walks of life, time period and region have similar views of women. Pushing aside any specifics in the history of women’s rights, they have always been a symbol of beauty and fertility.