Venus is in the eye of the beholder
In a German cave known as Hohle Fels, archeologists have found the earliest sculpture known (35,000 years old), a tiny (2.4 inch) ivory figurine that appears to be part of an ancient tradition of portraying ample figures of female bounty:
I first encountered one of these forms, the well-known Venus of Willendorf, in an art history class my freshman year of college:
Except for the fact that she’s made of limestone instead of ivory, is two inches taller than her new-found sister, has a head (but no features except for some sort of braided hair), and is at least ten thousand years her junior, Willendorf is remarkably like the Hohle Fels figurine. Yes, the ivory gal has perkier breasts, but otherwise they are extraordinarily similar: heavy with flesh and emphasis of the female characteristics, probably even pregnant.
But these two go the “barefoot and pregnant” notion one better—both are not only shoeless but footless, and scholars say they were made that way. Their little arms are placed across their ample middles—in Willendorf’s case on the breasts themselves, whereas for Hohle Fels it’s the stomach (see this for a better look at the latter). My guess is that in this way the sculptors sought to avoid the problem of breakage that occurs when limbs are free of the body.
Scientists differ as to the figures’ meaning and significance. Sex and fertility, of course; but did one take primacy over the other?
The archaeologists agreed the [Hohle Fels] sculpture’s age and features invite speculation about its purpose and the preoccupations of the culture that produced it.
Cook suggested it could be symbol of fertility, perhaps even portrayed in the act of giving birth.
Mellars suggested a more basic motivation for the carving: “These people were obsessed with sex.”
Conard said the differing opinions reinforced the connection between the ancient artist and modern viewer.
“How we interpret it tells us just as much about ourselves as about people 40,000 years ago,” he said.
Perhaps more.
“These people were obsessed with sex”?? So we’re not? Has anything changed?
One of my favorite sculptures: puts modern art to shame and speaks loudly as evidence that the so-called cave man was as intelligent as modern man.
The sculpture is a portrayal of the concept of fertility. The body represents a dietary condition known as steatopygy. The absent feet, diminished arms across the chest, and the bent legs speak of a figure that does not need to act and is suspended in time. The bent forward featureless face indicates that the thing represented is not a person: there are cave paintings representing the same physical condition but with an upright head; these represent priestesses.
The venus is of a canon: there have been found objects that show the various stages of carving. This canon with changes in proportions is found from Spain across Europe and into China. In China, The venus is elongated and wears a fox tail ornamentation.
Mellars suggested a more basic motivation for the carving: “These people were obsessed with sex.”
‘Cuz, y’know, sex has nothing to do with creating the next generation, the continuation of your culture or an investment in the future.
Perhaps in a hostile and unforgiving world they were obsessed with life!
The figures are heavy with flesh and life for the same reason no one ever sculpted an un-ripe bunch of grapes!
I’d have said they were obsessed with reproduction, except I wouldn’t have used the word “obsessed.” Interested, concerned, encouraging, but not obsessed. They might have been obsessed with survival.
“How we interpret it tells us just as much about ourselves as about people 40,000 years ago,” he said.
The cave artist was quite serious regarding what he was representing and its accuracy: he was dealing with spiritual things: magic. And the artist was a consumer of precious resources: if he was incompetent, he was expendable.
It is the modern who is incompetent and illiterate: that is what can be said of such man as Conard.
btw: the fact that the image was canonical speaks of a master/apprentice system in existence even in the stone age.
Reproduction was critical to replenish and continue the fights and war as many of these tribes people died before their 20th-something birthday — if not of malice then of biological organisms and disease and hunger and exposure — the list goes on to paint an almost unimaginable picture of panicked and miserable short lives — and for so many generations — it makes the use of the word generation seem to small.
Can you image how cheap the transcendent and numinous must have come — wildly magical wonderment was produced by drawing lines in the sand, to fasioing simple tools — those that could weave tales and create such little pieces of art must have been hailed, or murderously envied, or envied in healthy ways like a motivation to others, but nevertheless hailed like sometime more than human, some thing more than human.
Today we know better don’t we? Artist are refined used car salesmen, hucksters; some are good, most are not.
I see a carving meant to pass time and amuse. Like we amuse ourselves by speculating as though this is ground breaking work with much to be read into it. It’s extremely elementary.
Do you think it came cheaply, nyomythus, or did they simply live in numinous wonderment? Or what would seem to us to be so?
Maybe their artists seemed to them to be used car salesmen and hucksters, to. But I would prefer to think of them as you do, wondering over lines formed by a stick dragged through sand.
Too, I mean. Goodness.
I think in all the agony and sadness and emotion and pain — something of a mystery no doubt produced extraordinary heart pounding awe.
Some of what I’m getting from listening to this, but I dare say with such a mundane and regimented life I have, only a smidgen — to come closer I would need more than a beauty and appreciation of a master phonometrician.
Satie: Trois Gnossiennes rendered via Moog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOlmef64nYI
Boy, this topic brings back my undergraduate days. I did not have much of an art background before I took my art history class in 1978. We spent two weeks looking at female/fertility figures. I think I would have a much greater appreciation now then I did when I was 18.
Is anyone else feeling a bit paranoid about grammar and word choice after yesterday’s extended discussion? I am frankly scared to death to attempt quotation marks or parentheses.
Wow! Graphic depictions of the female form, with secondary sexual characteristics emphasized.
What do you suppose they were selling?
There needs to be more discussion of this modern concept where ancient peoples are mythologised to the point of being held up as incredibly enlightened humans.
We do it with native Americans, Aztecs, cavemen and tribes in deep jungles. As though ignorance really is bliss and they had no dishonest a**holes among them to screw things up. As though they somehow restrained themselves from inventing indoor plumbing from some deep insight that their way of life was more fitting and correct for people.
Well no. They lived the way they did from a lack of unleashing human imagination and creativity. Every single one of them would have traded all their arrowheads, primitive tools and baskets for an actual enlightened human to put a simple paper airplane in their hands.
JThoits, yes indeedy. See my 9:14 pm!
Art tended to go through stylized phases over the course of history. Things were often just depicted the way they were because, well, that’s the way it was done!
Look at Egyptian art and how it remained fairly consistent for long periods of time as a rough example of what I mean.
This figurine strikes me as a depiction that falls into that catagory. She was created in this manner because that’s the way it was done as far back as anyone could remember, and continued to be done in the same manner for a very long time.
I suspect, as was referenced by another, that part of why she was depicted in this fashion originally was due to the crudity of materials and techniques that were employed, and keeping her as simple as possible ensured she stayed in one piece as long as possible with little breakage.
I’d even go so far as to suspect that the figurine in question may even have originally had a head that simply broke off, and rather discard the figure some ancient someone just figured out how to attach a string to it and kept it.
Think of how many modern humans continue to hold onto items long after they are worn out or broken with the intent to “fix them up”.
If everything that was broken was simply discarded, hardware stores and auto supply shops would have closed down a long time ago.
The big unknown here is, what exactly was the intent of this depiction? Was it intended to glorify a concept (motherhood, fertility, good health, etc.), intended as a religious device for some sort for a goddess, or was it ancient porn?
Who knows?
The only ones who could definitively answer that question for us all died a long time ago.
So, IMO it’s better to forget about absolute statements of what this figure means (it’s just guessing anyway!) and simply enjoy the fact that we are in a position to appreciate the artistic efforts of a human being who spent a lot of time thousands of years ago to create this figurine, and after all this time she is still around to be appreciated.
We should all be so lucky as to leave such a mark on the world, even if it is now anonymous.
Hunters and gatherers go through feast and famine. Since meat can’t well be stored–at least in the summer–you eat all you can and then have to go back out when the last of a big haul goes green. Plant goods last better, but not for long and there is no indication in the Paleolithic of tools for working grain. So you got it when it was ripe and not otherwise.
But while things are good, there is, literally, nothing to do. There is no way to prepare for the future, no incentive to try to get ahead except with a few more blades.
So how do you pass the time?
help please what is the full original name of this statue
??i cant find its name ?