Introduction
In this essay I will be studying details and contextual information on the sculptures: Woman of Willendorf and Venus de Milo (Aphrodite of Melos). After discussing what I’ve learned about the pieces, I will compare them to one another, making connections between the two, what their possible cultural significance could have been, and the possible ways that they could be a reflection on beauty standards of their different eras.
I selected these two pieces to explore because they both have ties to fertility. Despite there being several thousand lifetimes separating them, the people who they were created by, and the culture they were created for, I am curious to draw similarities and differences between them. I am interested to find how these ancient cultures may have reflected each other, and in what way they don’t.
The Woman from Willendorf
The Woman from Willendorf is very small, at just under four and a half inches tall. She is believed to have been made around 24,000 BCE and was found in Austria. She is made of limestone that was once colored with red ochre. There are many sculptures similar to her from the same time period which has led to many theories about what her purpose may have been, and what beliefs may have surrounded her. The most common theories are her ties to fertility and that she may have been a Goddess, but we honestly are unsure of her true purpose.
As I mentioned, there are many sculptures that have been found that are quite similar to her. They are most commonly quite heavy, with large breasts, no face, and no feet. The arms are unpronounced, and presumably, unimportant. The fact that she doesn’t have a face suggests that it may not be any person or deity in particular, rather acting as fertility charm rather than a representation of anyone or anything in particular. She is a fairly naturalistic sculpture, even as exaggerated as she is. The way that her stomach settles suggests that the people were quite familiar with the human form, as well as the way that fat naturally sits; it was carved fairly close to reality. Her legs, though very small, are also quite naturalistic, especially her knees.
The most exaggerated parts of her body are ones that are closely associated with pregnancy and fertility, leading to the theory that, culturally, she is fertility related. Another theory that I’ve heard about her, and the other statues similar to her, is that women may have used their own bodies as reference and carved them based on what they saw from looking down at themselves. This would explain the reason that she has such exaggerated proportions, as the feminine form looks similar when viewed from above. As being heavy in ancient times was a rarity due to lifestyle, it often meant good health and possibly wealth; as such, she could have been a charm wishing prosperity upon the family group.
Venus de Milo/Aphrodite of Melos
The Venus de Milo, or Aphrodite of Melos, is quite obviously Very Different from the Woman from Willendorf. She was created between 150-100 BCE. She was discovered on the island of Melos, earning her name. The artist isn’t known for certain, but is believed to be Alexandros, the son of Menides. She is sculpted of marble. This is something that likely saved her from being destroyed like many other Greek originals, which were most commonly made of bronze. She was created during the Hellenistic Period.
With the Hellenistic Period came a few stylistic shifts in art. One of the biggest changes had to do with how Gods and Goddesses appeared in art. In the Classic Period, they were shown doing very Serious Things, but with the Hellenistic Period, the juxtaposition between man and God decreased. Gods and Goddesses were now being shown doing more human-like activities. This is the reason that Aphrodite is being shown preparing for a bath, something that wouldn’t necessarily be an activity the Gods would need to participate in.
Another artistic change with the Hellenistic Period has to do with expressions. During the Classical Period people had very serene expressions. The shown emotion was very controlled and neutral, but in the Hellenistic Period this changed. Many statues from this period have highly dramatic expressions. Aphrodite of Melos does not follow this trend, which wasn’t necessarily uncommon, but also not that expected during this time, as expressive was more common. Showing that the Gods and Goddesses felt the same sorts of things as human beings.
She is very naturalistic. The contrapposto pose feels natural and pleasing to the eye, drawing the gaze across the subtle, careful details on the stone. However, the curve to her body is quite exaggerated and feels very posed, rather than how you might catch someone about to bathe. This is less common during this time as many pieces are action oriented and fairly naturally posed. Her proportions fall into the requirements of Polykleitos’ canon and are fairly idealized. There is incredibly careful attention to the detail of her skirts. The folds of the fabric are very naturalistic, the way it falls over her legs, the way her legs show through the fabric, almost make it feel as though fabric truly is draped over this statue and it is not carved from marble.
How are they the Same? How are they Different?
It can be difficult to compare these two pieces, especially cultural context without knowing much about the Paleolithic People and their social intricacies. Because of this, many of the comparisons and probabilities I come to are entirely hypothetical, though educated, guesses at what Could be.
While fertility was important to the ancient humans, however, many of the features of the Woman from Willendorf would also be a hindrance in Hunter/Gatherer communities. Once with child, a mother would have to move about and carry that child for many years. They lived nomadic lives, moving where the food was, so to be too heavy would also quite quickly hinder the clan members and their ability to care for one another. Things we know about paleolithic people and communities:
People in Ancient Greece lived wildly different lives, and it is around this time and forward that plumper stature is highly prized and seen as very beautiful, wealthy, and healthy. This changes as society becomes more and more modern, but to be plumper and better off starts to be prized with the introduction of agriculture into society. People didn’t have to live nomadic lifestyles, and to not have to work hard on the farm was a Sure Sign of Wealth.
It seems unrealistic to believe that plump was truly an ideal form for the paleolithic people in comparison to the Greeks. With the lifestyle differences, it would be problematic to be overweight and troublesome to be pregnant more than once or twice in a lifetime, whereas, Greek women would not have had the same struggles in place. They would have had very different standards—it’s more likely that an ideal form for paleolithic people is Muscular. Strong enough to carry your children and still keep up as you and your clan move from place to place. This would not have been a prized trait in Grecian women.
If we assume that the Woman from Willendorf truly is a reflection of ideal beauty from the time, then Aphrodite and Ms. Willendorf have much in common. Aphrodite is healthily plump, not overweight, but not underweight either. She is well fed and likely able to be fairly sedentary, if she desires. She has a strength to her; she can bear children.
Seeing as fertility has always been a very human need, it would make sense for both of them to represent these things. I feel it to be far more likely that the Woman from Willendorf represents abundance and luck for the holder or the clan, but perhaps not as a beauty standard. She has had access to much food, perhaps greatly desired and worshipped in times of little, like winter. We know that Aphrodite is the goddess of love. The need for a Goddess of Fertility tells a lot about possible fears and stresses of the time for both groups.
Conclusion
Though it is hard to truly compare and contrast these pieces due to limited information, there are many possibilities of what they could each mean to their respective people. Fertility was prized among both groups in order to continue lineage and society. They strength and health to carry children to term was also so important. We can conclude that, while needs of the people were very different, they still had things in common with one another.
Works Cited
Stokstad, Marilyn, and Michael Watt Cothren. Art History. 5th ed., vol. 1, Pearson Education, 2014.
Oliver Harrington 